latest NHRP I-D
gardo@vnet.ibm.com Mon, 27 November 1995 20:12 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26117;
27 Nov 95 15:12 EST
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26112;
27 Nov 95 15:12 EST
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.98.5]) by
guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA10502;
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:41:53 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id
OAA01059 for rolc-out; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:54:20 -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 OAA01050;
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:54:17 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: gardo@vnet.ibm.com
Received: from VNET.IBM.COM (vnet.ibm.com [199.171.26.4]) by guelah.nexen.com
(8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA10494; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 14:40:00 -0500
Message-Id: <199511271940.OAA10494@guelah.nexen.com>
Received: from RALVM29 by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 9934;
Mon, 27 Nov 95 14:50:02 EST
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 95 14:21:11 EST
To: luciani@nexen.com
cc: rolc@nexen.com, yakov@cisco.com, genecox@vnet.ibm.com
Subject: latest NHRP I-D
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/
Ref: Your note of Mon, 27 Nov 1995 13:02:55 -0500
Jim, Welcome back! >>>Folks, >>> >>>Can a Purge message carry optional extensions, and specifically the >>>Destination Mask extension ? If not, then how one could purge a shortcut >>>to an address prefix ? >>> >>>Yakov. I was responding to Yakov's question (see above) because I think this is a real problem in the latest NHRP. >I did not hear a consensus on this issue! On the other hand, I am >happy with the comments that I made. [...] >get true consensus before committing things to a draft. So, you do not agree to include the ability to send a mask in a Purge because there is no consensus? I think the mask needs to be included in the draft, as you originally proposed (see below), because there was a consensus that we need a mask. >>James Luciani wrote: >>>To: shur@arch4.ho.att.com >>>Subject: Re: Purge packet >>>In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:23:41 EDT." >>> <9510161323.AA18375@dahlia.ho.att.com> >>>cc: rolc@nexen.com >>>Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:24:56 -0400 >>>From: James Luciani <luciani@nexen.com> >>>Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com >>>[...] >>>Also, the Destination Prefix Extension as of V4 (and alpha v5) can >>>only be in the request and reply packets, (read it closely :-( ), so >>>we need to change that if we go down this path. Also, we do not want >>>the prefix as part of the purge packet per se because we want to move >>>toward a multiprotocol internetworking layer version of NHRP (i.e., >>>NHRP for MPON (my new acronym for Multi-Protocol Over NBMA :-) )) and >>>the internetworking protocol layer address length will be different >>>from protocol to protocol which argues for a varying length field. We >>>also probably don't want to complicate minimum functionality clients >>>and servers (you'll note that the prefix extension is a >>>"discretionary" extention) so having the prefix as part of the packet >>>per se is less desirable. >>> >>>An example of new text for the extension follows: >>> >>>5.7.1 Destination Prefix Extension (IPv4-Specific) >>> >>> Discretionary = 1 >>> Type = 1 >>> Length = 1 >>> >>> This extension is used to indicate that the information carried in an >>> NHRP Reply/Purge pertains to an equivalence class of internetwork layer destination >>> addresses rather than just the internetwork layer destination address >>> specified in the request. >>> >>>etc... >>> >>> >>>Regards, >>>-- Jim Luciani >>> -- Russell
- latest NHRP I-D Yakov Rekhter
- Re: latest NHRP I-D Yakov Rekhter
- latest NHRP I-D gardo
- Re: latest NHRP I-D James Luciani
- latest NHRP I-D gardo