Re: Comments on NHRP spec.,, modes of deployment etc.

shur@arch4.ho.att.com Tue, 15 August 1995 15:10 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14554; 15 Aug 95 11:10 EDT
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14550; 15 Aug 95 11:10 EDT
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.97.5]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05337; Tue, 15 Aug 1995 10:52:11 -0400
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26776 for rolc-out; Tue, 15 Aug 1995 10:49:14 -0400
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 KAA26762; Tue, 15 Aug 1995 10:49:09 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: shur@arch4.ho.att.com
Received: from gw2.att.com (gw2.att.com [192.20.239.134]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA05264; Tue, 15 Aug 1995 10:47:21 -0400
Received: from arch4.ho.att.com by ig1.att.att.com id AA00812; Tue, 15 Aug 95 10:10:35 EDT
Received: from dahlia.ho.att.com by arch4.ho.att.com (4.1/EMS-1.2 GIS) id AA01898; Tue, 15 Aug 95 10:10:30 EDT
Received: by dahlia.ho.att.com (4.1/EMS-1.1 SunOS) id AA02245; Tue, 15 Aug 95 10:10:45 EDT
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 10:10:45 EDT
Message-Id: <9508151410.AA02245@dahlia.ho.att.com>
To: bcole@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Comments on NHRP spec.,, modes of deployment etc.
Cc: dkatz@cisco.com, dave@corecom.com, rolc@nexen.com, malis@nexen.com
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/

Bruce,

Thanks for responding.

> > NHRP spec authors:
> > 
> > I am confused by the way the current version of the spec. is worded 
> > in that it appears that modes of deployment are described as different ways
> > in which servers may interact.
> 
> The current plan is to remove server mode from the spec, as server mode (as it
> is currently described) falls apart when the IP network layer encapsulation
> is replaced by an LLC/SNAP encapsulation.  Removal of server mode should
> eliminate the confusion, no?

This will help.
> 
> Note that there are several side effects of this encapsulation change
> which have not been discussed/emphasized on the list.  Some which come to mind
> are:
> 
> - No more requirement for a router-alert option, or the equivalent.
>   Each hop within the NBMA now either supports NHRP, or (should!) fail to route
>   the NHRP traffic.
> 
> - Partial deployment of NHRP more problematic
>   An intermediate hop which does not support NHRP causes NHRP address
>   resolution to now fail.  It should still be possible for a subset of the
>   cloud to make use of NHRP...
> 
> > I would like the spec to define and differentiate between the NHRP
> > client-server interface
> 
> I see no difference from a protocol point of view.  Any station within
> the NBMA can potentially send both request and response packets.
> 

What I had in mind was that the NHRP clients register with, send queries to 
and get responses from NHRP servers. NHRP servers forward/resolve queries, 
and return responses to clients. These are different functions.
Listing the set of operations that an NHRP client must perform,
and then listing the operations that a server must perform would make
it clearer to potential implementators what needs to be built for a client
versus a server.
> > and the NHRP server-server interface, and keep
> > these separate from any discussion of modes of deployment.
> 
> There is no server to server protocol.
> 
Fine, but there are aspects of the NHRP protocol that are specific to 
client-server interaction (e.g. registration) and not to server-server 
interaction and vice versa.

David.