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

[Andrew Smith <[e-mail]>]

> From [e-mail] Tue Aug 15 13:49:12 1995
> To: Grenville Armitage <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Bruce Cole <[e-mail]>om>, [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Comments on NHRP spec.,, modes of deployment etc. 
> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Aug 1995 10:51:27 EDT."
>              <[e-mail]> 
> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 13:28:50 -0700
> From: Bruce Cole <[e-mail]>

> (The ability
> of 'hosts' to answer NHRP requests is still required since it was not
> made a requirement that NHSes assume the full burden of providing
> NHRP responses for stations that attempt to register with them).

Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this as a design choice and also
point us to the relevent text in the document?

When I reread the -04 document, I could not find any references to this
case: all the time it talks about NHSs generating replies to queries and
for NHSs to forward queries to other NHSs "towards" the destination. I could
not find mention of a case where a client would receive an NHRP query.

If clients never have to respond to queries then this is an important
simplification which should be called out explicitly. It would also, IM(H)O,
justify David's request that client-server and server-server behaviours be
defined separately in the document. Please add some text on this to the next
document.

Is this yet another case where the NHRP authors are making some implicit
assumptions without sharing them with the rest of the world so we can all
implement the protocol too?


Andrew


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