Re: ARP and NHRP question

[Tim Salo <[e-mail]>]

> From: James Watt <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: ARP and NHRP question
> To: [e-mail] (Eric W. Gray)
> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 17:04:02 -0500 (EST)
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> 
> Eric W. Gray writes:
> +------------
> |Here's where I get confused; if you really want the server to be the complex
> |one and the client to always use one protocol, then don't you want the NHRP
> |server to do the ATMARP (on behalf of the client) so that it can return an
> |answer using NHRP?
> +----------
> Yes, although it would probably be more simple for the NHRP server to _be_
> the ATMARP server...

I still don't understand.

Are you saying that an NHRP server and an ATMARP server should co-reside,
perhaps even share a common database, but support two protocols for
resolving IP addresses into ATM addresses?

Or, should the "NHRP server be the ATMARP server" in the sense that
the server and clients support only one protocol for resolving IP
addresses into ATM addresses, namely the NHPR protocol?

By the way, I prefer the latter solution: migrate to using the NHRP
protocol (or any other other _single_ protocol that works, for that
matter) for resolving both intra-LIS and inter-LIS IP addresses.

-tjs