IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

shur@arch4.ho.att.com Fri, 11 August 1995 22:19 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21993; 11 Aug 95 18:19 EDT
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21989; 11 Aug 95 18:19 EDT
Received: from maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.97.5]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA18481; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 18:05:10 -0400
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA06360 for rolc-out; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 18:04:51 -0400
Received: from guelah.nexen.com (guelah.nexen.com [204.249.96.19]) by maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA06349; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 18:04:46 -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 SAA18465; Fri, 11 Aug 1995 18:03:24 -0400
Received: from arch4.ho.att.com by ig1.att.att.com id AA00206; Fri, 11 Aug 95 17:00:13 EDT
Received: from dahlia.ho.att.com by arch4.ho.att.com (4.1/EMS-1.2 GIS) id AA06058; Fri, 11 Aug 95 17:00:36 EDT
Received: by dahlia.ho.att.com (4.1/EMS-1.1 SunOS) id AA00841; Fri, 11 Aug 95 17:00:51 EDT
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 17:00:51 EDT
Message-Id: <9508112100.AA00841@dahlia.ho.att.com>
To: dkatz@cisco.com, bcole@cisco.com, dave@corecom.com
Subject: Comments on NHRP spec.,, modes of deployment etc.
Cc: 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/

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.

I would like the spec to define and differentiate between the NHRP
client-server interface, and the NHRP server-server interface, and keep
these separate from any discussion of modes of deployment. These 2
interface definitions should be sufficient to enable interoperability.
Once these are clearly defined, then the section on modes of deployment
(fabric, server (if its still there), or whatever) becomes purely
informational. Network providers may pick or invent any deployment mode
they want, as long as they comply with the interface specs.

Thanks,
David.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email