Re: NHRP v6 - hardware type / address type

[Grenville Armitage <[e-mail]>]

>>Dave and I share some of the same scars from this one.  I'll have to
>>endorse what he said, enthousiastically.

While I dont want to question your enthusiasm, I do question the
sense of this logic. I'm hearing rather emotive reasons having
more to do with the fact that at some historical point in
time people were stingy with ARP code, and made implementations
with faulty assumptions.

Once burnt, never use fire again? You'd have been a very
cold cave man :-)

	[..]
>>It would be useful to have
>>an "address type" to handle those cases where multiple address formats
>>are in use on the same medium.  However, in that case it is absolutely
>>essential that the SAME "address type" value be used on different
>>media to represent the same addresses, or addresses that differ only
>>in a trivial one-to-one mapping.

So on one hand you're happy to write code that branches based
on the 16 bit identifier, but on the other hand you're not.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Why do I get the
impression that this reaction to 'hardware type' is a
touchy-feely emotive one due to a desire to differentiate
the glorious NHRP from the ugly ATMARP ?

gja