nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension

[[e-mail]]

On Wed, 25 Oct 1995 [e-mail] wrote:
>Date: Fri, 3 Nov 95 15:29:22 PST
>From: [e-mail] (Andrew Smith)
>Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension
>
>I think we should try to simplify the protocol by allowing fewer options.
>I believe that the overall system complexity will be lower, even if
>individual client complexity is higher (think globally, act locally :-))
>if we insist all clients behave the same in this regard.
>
>> Therefore, why not add another extension called the "purge mask
>> extension" with the discretionary flag = 0.  This way the destination
>> prefix extension in the Reply can remain a discretionary extension.
>> Maybe this proposal is acceptable?  This proposal addresses the
>> following problems:
>
>>   1) No flags in the dest prefix extension used in Reply packets
>Good!
>
>>   2) Destination Prefix Extension remains discretionary
>Is it a feature or a bug that it is discretionary?
>
>>   3) Only clients that support a purge with mask will receive this
>>      extension
>>   4) The new extension is not discretionary, never ignored...
>You've effectively moved the problem back to a once-off initialisation-time
>negotiation. I'd rather have no negotiation at all: make it mandatory!

I agree to make it mandatory; my preference is to make it mandatory
(put it in the mandatory part), but there are objections to making it
mandatory (see below).  I am concerned that the mask will never get
added anywhere if there is not a compromise.
So, my second choice is:
Put the mask in a non-discretionary extension.  I believe this is an
acceptable compromise.  Does anyone disagree?

On Wed, 25 Oct 1995 [e-mail] wrote:
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: clarification on the Purge format direction/status/positions
>cc: [e-mail]
>Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 18:28:27 -0500
>From: James Luciani <[e-mail]>
>
>Russell,
>
>Maybe you were not listening but I objected to making this MANDATORY
>though I am in favor of its use on a discretionary basis.
[...]
>> It's not clear if there are objections to the above proposal:
>> Are there any objections to putting the mask in the mandatory,
>> protocol-specific part of the Purge packet?

Therefore, why not add an extension called the "purge mask
extension" with the discretionary flag = 0.  This way the destination
prefix extension in the Reply can remain a discretionary extension.

Does anyone object, other than Andrew?  :-)

-- Russell