IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Application Statement

"Jeffrey A. Buffum - Bay Networks" <jbuffum@pobox.wellfleet.com> Mon, 06 March 1995 13:45 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02244; 6 Mar 95 8:45 EST
Received: from maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id ab02240; 6 Mar 95 8:45 EST
Received: from lobster.wellfleet.com (lobster.wellfleet.com [192.32.253.3]) by maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com (8.6.9/ACTON-MAIN-1.2) with SMTP id IAA16692 for <rolc@acton.timeplex.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 08:41:30 -0500
Received: from redhook.wellfleet (redhook.wellfleet.com) by lobster.wellfleet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA15831; Mon, 6 Mar 95 08:40:43 EST
Received: by redhook.wellfleet (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09541; Mon, 6 Mar 95 08:40:10 EST
Message-Id: <9503061340.AA09541@redhook.wellfleet>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.5 11/22/94
To: "j.garrett" <jwg@garage.att.com>
Cc: rolc@acton.timeplex.com
Subject: Re: Application Statement
In-Reply-To: Your message of "03 Mar 1995 15:55:00 EST." <9503032056.AA26194@ig1.att.att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 08:40:06 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Jeffrey A. Buffum - Bay Networks" <jbuffum@pobox.wellfleet.com>

John,

> If NHRP was the only solution available, I would understand
> the "better a flawed solution than no solution" argument.
> Fortunately, there are at least two different ways to solve the
> address resolution problem - (1) embed subnetwork (e.g., ATM) addresses
> in the routing protocol or (2) a query/response address resolution
> protocol with querys sent to the router that provided the next-hop
> information, rather than to the next-hop.  The query/response
> approach resolves both next-hop router addresses and destination
> host addresses, while embedding subnetwork addresses in the routing
> protocol only resolves next-hop router addresses.

Couldn't this "query/response address resolution protocol" be interpreted as
"server mode" NHRP? As I read the specification, there is not clear statement
as to how NHS interoperate. Could not an NHS be a router? Thus, the NHS are
the "routers" for the NBMA network. Therefore, every NHS has the correct answer
and the NHS forwarding procedures in NHRP can be ignored.

Just a thought!

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeffrey Buffum                  Phone:    508-436-8565              |
| R&D Alliances                   Internet: jbuffum@baynetworks.com   |
| Bay Networks                    Fax:      508-670-8154              |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email