nhrp-05

[[e-mail]]

David,

>>6.   Proposal to add prefix mask to purge packet
>A prefix mask extension sounds reasonable, though it may
>complicate client implementations to always act on it.
>If the purge acknowledge set the mask to be what was actually
>purged, then the NHS revert to entry by entry if needed.

I don't see how a mask in the Purge would really complicate client
implementations.  Are there implementations that do not have access to
all cache entries?

However, if NHRP clients are not required to support the mask in a
Purge, then I prefer a client's support of the purge-mask be
communicated during the Request/Reply exchange, in a separate
PURGE-MASK EXTENSION that is non-discretionary (this would be a new
extension).  I like this better than using the ack because it makes
the purge more reliable on the first Purge packet because the server
knows which clients support the purge mask before sending a Purge,
instead of learning afterwards...

Have a nice day!
-- Russell