Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension
Bruce Cole <bcole@cisco.com> Fri, 03 November 1995 02:17 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28825;
2 Nov 95 21:17 EST
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28821;
2 Nov 95 21:17 EST
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.99.5]) by
guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA07164;
Thu, 2 Nov 1995 20:48:27 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id
UAA14948 for rolc-out; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 20:55:15 -0500
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 UAA14939 for
<rolc@nexen.com>; Thu, 2 Nov 1995 20:55:08 -0500
Received: from greatdane.cisco.com (greatdane.cisco.com [171.69.1.141]) by
guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA07152 for <rolc@nexen.com>;
Thu, 2 Nov 1995 20:42:17 -0500
Received: from cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by
greatdane.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA22194;
Thu, 2 Nov 1995 17:50:22 -0800
Message-Id: <199511030150.RAA22194@greatdane.cisco.com>
To: Andrew Smith <asmith@baynetworks.com>
Cc: bcole@cisco.com, rolc@nexen.com
Subject: Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Nov 1995 11:28:03 PST."
<9511021928.AA01399@milliways-le0.engwest>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 17:50:22 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bruce Cole <bcole@cisco.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/
> > > > 6. Proposal to add prefix mask to purge packet > > > > > > The consensus on item #6 follows: > > > Allow the destination prefix extension to be sent in Purge packets. > > > > I saw no disagreement to this proposal, and it seems like a sensible > > compromise. Objections? > > I tried to argue against this proposal merely on the grounds of not > having seen any real justification that it would save much traffic in > realistic scenarios and that nobody seemed to have evaluated the overall > system impact very thoroughly. Are we operating on the "guilty until proven > innocent" principle here? Certainly not. Consensus on this item didn't seem clear, which is why I hadn't listed it as a seemingly resolved issue in the first place. Your disagreement seemed to be that it was unclear what the semantics are for a purge with an associated mask. The subsequent proposal to simply allow the destination prefix extension to be included in purge packets seemed to go undisputed. So I asked if there were objections... Shall we first further discuss what we think the semantics are for a mask that is included in a purge request? It doesn't look like we have that clearly defined yet. I could tell you what I think it means :) > But, if we are going to adopt the mask stuff at all then I propose strongly > that we add it's support in receivers as MANDATORY citing both the "options > are bad" and the "be liberal in what you accept" principles. For a station to efficiently support cache invalidation requests that include a network mask, the cache should be tree based instead of a simple linked list/hash table. Basically you're requiring all NHRP stations to support aggregation of NBMA information, and a sophisticated cache. I think this is a bit of a leap over current requirements. > BTW, I think these NHRP client complexity arguments are bogus when compared > to the complexity of any ATM signaling client that might sit below NHRP! For some of us, ATM is not the only media type that is being supported by NHRP. For other media such as SMDS, the complexity is much less... (Just playing devil's advocate here.)
- Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension gardo
- Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension Bruce Cole
- nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension gardo
- Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension Bruce Cole
- Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension Andrew Smith
- Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension Andrew Smith
- Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension debruin
- Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension Bruce Cole
- Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension Andrew Smith
- nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension gardo
- Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension debruin
- Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension Andrew Smith
- Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension Andrew Smith
- nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension gardo
- Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension Andrew Smith