IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NHRP question

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com> Wed, 18 October 1995 21:29 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17235; 18 Oct 95 17:29 EDT
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17230; 18 Oct 95 17:29 EDT
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com ([204.249.99.5]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA10908; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:55:32 -0400
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA14770 for rolc-out; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:04:48 -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 RAA14761; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:04:45 -0400
Received: from hubbub.cisco.com (hubbub.cisco.com [198.92.30.32]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA10900; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:54:46 -0400
Received: from puli.cisco.com (puli.cisco.com [171.69.1.174]) by hubbub.cisco.com (8.6.12/CISCO.GATE.1.1) with SMTP id OAA20383; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:01:04 -0700
Message-Id: <199510182101.OAA20383@hubbub.cisco.com>
To: James Luciani <luciani@nexen.com>
cc: rolc@nexen.com
Subject: Re: NHRP question
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 18 Oct 95 16:47:22 EDT." <199510182047.QAA11142@shovel.nexen.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 14:01:04 PDT
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@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/

Jim,

> These bits were in NHRP since v1.  If we do not do the R2R case in NHRP,
> their value is questionable.

We're certainly going to do R2R case in NHRP, but the question is
whether R2R Request/Reply would have the same fixed header format as
the current Request/Reply. For the R2R case it would be very useful if
the router that originates a Request would be able to specify an
address prefix (rather than just a single destination) for which a
shortcut is desired. However, the current format of the fixed header in
NHRP would make this problematic.

If R2R case would mean different fixed header format than the current
NHRP, then when a router wants to find a shortcut should it use R2R or
current NHRP ?

Yakov.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email