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.
- Comments on NHRP spec.,, modes of deployment etc. shur
- Re: Comments on NHRP spec.,, modes of deployment … Bruce Cole
- Re: Comments on NHRP spec.,, modes of deployment … Grenville Armitage
- Re: Comments on NHRP spec.,, modes of deployment … shur
- Re: Comments on NHRP spec.,, modes of deployment … Bruce Cole
- Re: Comments on NHRP spec.,, modes of deployment … shur
- Re: Comments on NHRP spec.,, modes of deployment … Andrew Smith
- Re: Comments on NHRP spec.,, modes of deployment … Bruce Cole