Purge packet

gardo@vnet.ibm.com Sat, 14 October 1995 21:06 UTC

Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: gardo@vnet.ibm.com
Message-Id: <199510142020.QAA23627@guelah.nexen.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 95 15:58:51 EDT
To: rolc@nexen.com
cc: debruin@vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Purge packet
Precedence: bulk
Ref: My note of Wed, 27 Sep 95 16:15:26 EDT

When a client supports the "Destination Prefix Extension", what
benefit is the Request-ID in the Purge packet?  Isn't this duplicate
information, therefore a higher risk of error.

To send the "Destination Prefix Extension" in a Purge packet,
the server must remember whether that client supplied this extension
in the original Request packet.  Correct?

Why not remove the Request-ID from Purge packet and add a mask field to
the Purge packet?  I don't think it really complicates the client to
remove the Request-ID from the Purge packet.  Will servers really need to
check the Request-ID in Purge packet acknowledgements?

I propose that the Purge packet be changed, by removing the Request-ID
and adding a mask field.

-- Russell

Purge packet gardo
Purge packet Koichi Horikawa
Purge packet gardo
Re: Purge packet shur
Re: Purge packet James Luciani
Purge packet gardo