Re: router-router NHRP

[Dimitry Haskin <[e-mail]>]

Yakov,

> 
> Dimitry,
> 
> > It seems that we fail to communicate.  I never said that your "first
> > constraint" requires the originator to "maintain in its FIB a route
> > that covers *precisely* the same set of destinations as the target".
> > I said (and I believe that you've just confirmed it) that it requires
> > the originator to carry *a* route to the target which, of cause, can
> > be a supperset of the target.  If we take as an example a transient
> > domain with a need to carry the complete Internet set of target, it can
> > account for circa 30,000 routes to cover the reachable destinations.
> 
> You are certainly correct. So, for example a domain that uses default
> for exterior routing could just carry the default route and use
> this default route for NHRP. NHRP doesn't alter the amount of routes 
> that need to be carried.
> 
> Yakov.
> 

Well.. then, IMO, the "first constraint" makes your R2R proposal
uninteresting.  I hope NHRP's R2R will allow to limit the number of
forwarding devices that need to carry a full set of routes. I believe
that it is possible to design R2R such that external routes (whatever
amount is to be carried) are carried and stored to full extend only by
limited number of NHRP servers that can serve routing information on
demand to a much larger group of a lower-end access devices.  I've thought
that it was the original intend of NHRP.  To boot, I don't think we need
to design a new routing protocol to do what you are proposing since we have
already protocols that can do exactly that.

Dimitry