Re: ARP and NHRP question

[Andrew Smith <[e-mail]>]

> From [e-mail] Mon Nov 27 17:23:12 1995
> To: Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: ARP and NHRP question 
> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:55:59 PST."
>              <[e-mail]> 
> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 19:44:30 -0500
> From: Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>

Curtis,

> If you restrict NHRP to act only within a LIS and only responding for
> things on the LIS, you have about the same as RFC1577 ATM ARP.  You
> lose the robust server redundancy built into RFC1577++.

I would suggest that NHRP will need to merge in some server redundancy 
capabilities pretty fast if it is to be useful. I'm not sure that 
1577++ is the right model to pick long-term though: that merely pushes 
the problem down to the clients without a mechanism to manage the information 
that each client stores (this gets back to the configuration server issues of
a seperate thread).

> Curtis
> 

Andrew


********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith					TEL:	[phone]
Technology Synergy Unit				FAX:	[phone]
Bay Networks, Inc.				E-m:	[e-mail]
Santa Clara, CA
********************************************************************************