IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ARP and NHRP question

Juha Heinanen <jh@lohi.dat.tele.fi> Tue, 28 November 1995 08:44 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id ab09456; 28 Nov 95 3:44 EST
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09452; 28 Nov 95 3:44 EST
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.98.5]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14289; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 03:16:02 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08457 for rolc-out; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 03:27:13 -0500
Received: from guelah.nexen.com (guelah.nexen.com [204.249.96.19]) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA08444 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 03:27:07 -0500
Received: from lohi.dat.tele.fi (lohi.dat.tele.fi [193.167.64.161]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14275 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 03:12:48 -0500
Received: (from jh@localhost) by lohi.dat.tele.fi (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18909; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 10:19:22 +0200
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 10:19:22 +0200
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Juha Heinanen <jh@lohi.dat.tele.fi>
Message-Id: <199511280819.KAA18909@lohi.dat.tele.fi>
To: salo@msc.edu
CC: james@ca.newbridge.com, ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com, rolc@nexen.com
In-reply-to: <199511272339.RAA15099@uh.msc.edu> (salo@msc.edu)
Subject: Re: ARP and NHRP question
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/ By the way, I prefer the latter solution: migrate to using the NHRP protocol (or any other other _single_ protocol that works, for that matter) for resolving both intra-LIS and inter-LIS IP addresses.

it is a good idea in the long run to get rid of two protocols and use
nhrp for resolving all adresses.  but in order for that to work, nhrp
MUST support server redundancy like 1577++ does.  it makes no sense to
issue an nhrp rfc before that capability is in.

-- juha

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email