Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension

[Andrew Smith <[e-mail]>]

> From [e-mail] Sun Nov  5 13:21:59 1995
> Date: Sun, 5 Nov 95 16:21:45 EST
> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension

> I agree to make it mandatory; my preference is to make it mandatory
> (put it in the mandatory part), but there are objections to making it
> mandatory (see below).  I am concerned that the mask will never get
> added anywhere if there is not a compromise.
> So, my second choice is:
> Put the mask in a non-discretionary extension.  I believe this is an
> acceptable compromise.  Does anyone disagree?

I'd rather hear some more about Jim's objection to making it mandatory
first. Jim?


Andrew


********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith					TEL:	[phone]
Technology Synergy Unit				FAX:	[phone]
Bay Networks, Inc.				E-m:	[e-mail]
Santa Clara, CA
********************************************************************************


> On Wed, 25 Oct 1995 [e-mail] wrote:
> >To: [e-mail]
> >Subject: Re: clarification on the Purge format direction/status/positions
> >cc: [e-mail]
> >Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 18:28:27 -0500
> >From: James Luciani <[e-mail]>
> >
> >Russell,
> >
> >Maybe you were not listening but I objected to making this MANDATORY
> >though I am in favor of its use on a discretionary basis.
> [...]
> >> It's not clear if there are objections to the above proposal:
> >> Are there any objections to putting the mask in the mandatory,
> >> protocol-specific part of the Purge packet?
> 
> Therefore, why not add an extension called the "purge mask
> extension" with the discretionary flag = 0.  This way the destination
> prefix extension in the Reply can remain a discretionary extension.
> 
> Does anyone object, other than Andrew?  :-)
> 
> -- Russell
>