R2R NHRP - ensuring far end is alive

"M.J. Robinson" <92mjr1@eng.cam.ac.uk> Mon, 06 November 1995 18:36 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17751; 6 Nov 95 13:36 EST
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17747; 6 Nov 95 13:36 EST
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.99.5]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA20938; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 13:10:13 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA25022 for rolc-out; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 13:11:56 -0500
Received: from nexen.nexen.com (nexen.nexen.com [204.249.96.18]) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA25010 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 13:11:52 -0500
Received: from spanner.eng.cam.ac.uk ([129.169.8.9]) by nexen.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA12039 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 13:09:37 -0500
Received: from tw100.eng.cam.ac.uk (via 92mjr1@tw100.eng.cam.ac.uk [129.169.16.40]) by spanner.eng.cam.ac.uk with SMTP id QAA00353 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 16:56:54 GMT
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 16:56:53 +0000 (GMT)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "M.J. Robinson" <92mjr1@eng.cam.ac.uk>
To: rolc@nexen.com
Subject: R2R NHRP - ensuring far end is alive
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.91.951106162632.4765D-100000@tw100.eng.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Orig-Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: Submissions to rolc@nexen.com
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to rolc-request@nexen.com
X-Info: Archives for rolc via ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-mail-archive/rolc/

Yakov (and other ROLCers),
	Your current R2R approach requires that "Once a shortcut is 
established, the Requester needs to have some mechanism(s) to ensure that 
the other end of the shortcut is alive."
	Possible mechanisms suggested are:
(a) indications from the Data Link Layer
(b) prescence of traffic in the reverse direction that comes with the Link 
Layer address of the other end
(c) keepalives sent by the other end

	In some situations, keepalives may be the only option. 
Additionally, a "hello" time (meaning as for OSPF) of the order of 10
seconds might be required/desired. (For instance if IP encapsulated SNA is
being sent to a mainframe which has two connections to the NBMA (for
redundancy) ).
	I'm trying to understand how things would behave under such
conditions. Especially, what is the impact of such a high rate of
keepalives likely to be on both the network and routers ? 
	Thanks,

		Matthew Robinson.