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.
- R2R NHRP - ensuring far end is alive M.J. Robinson
- Re: R2R NHRP - ensuring far end is alive Yakov Rekhter