Re: Application Statement
"j.garrett" <jwg@garage.att.com> Sat, 04 March 1995 08:40 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id ae00205;
4 Mar 95 3:40 EST
Received: from maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
id aa25127; 4 Mar 95 2:46 EST
Received: from gw2.att.com (gw2.att.com [192.20.239.134]) by
maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com (8.6.9/ACTON-MAIN-1.2) with SMTP id CAA25615 for
<rolc@acton.timeplex.com>; Sat, 4 Mar 1995 02:42:20 -0500
Received: from garage.UUCP by ig1.att.att.com id AA26194;
Fri, 3 Mar 95 15:56:52 EST
Message-Id: <9503032056.AA26194@ig1.att.att.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "j.garrett" <jwg@garage.att.com>
Date: 3 Mar 95 15:55:00 -0500
Original-From: garage!jwg (j.garrett)
To: curtis@ans.net
Cc: rolc@acton.timeplex.com
Subject: Re: Application Statement
Curtis,
> The statement "For the purpose eeeg loop prevention, it is advisable
> avoid the non-NBMA paths between the routers where NHRP is being run."
> is total nonsense. What you are stating is that if the Internet
> deploys an ATM network where multiple Internet service providers
> attach, those Internet service providers should never use routes
> learned from other media. This is an unworkable attempt to whitewash
> the problem.
>
> NHRP can only safely do address resolution. You are trying to
> perpetuate the already disproven claim that NHRP is a viable
> replacement for routing.
>
> Curtis
Amen!
Moreover, NHRP Fabric Mode procedures require that the next-hop
determined by routing be resolved by some means other than NHRP.
That is, with NHRP Fabric Mode, routing IN NOT ALLOWED to find the
"optimal" next-hop unless other procedures are provided to resolve
the next-hop. The router originating an NHRP request encapsulates
the request in an IP packet addressed to
"either to the next-hop router or to the ultimate destination being
resolved."
Thus, the router can't forward the NHRP request UNLESS it
can resolve the next-hop address by some other means.
So if the only reason to send the NHRP request is to resolve
the next-hop address, NHRP Fabric Mode (as written) is useless.
Of course, NHRP Server Mode doesn't scale (well, at all),
and IMHO is also useless.
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.
Given that we have known for more than a year that NHRP can
create stable routing loops, why must we continue to cling
to NHRP as the only possible solution?
John Garrett
- Application Statement dhc2
- Re: Application Statement Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Application Statement dhc2
- Re: Application Statement Jeffrey A. Buffum - Bay Networks
- Application Statement yakov
- Re: Application Statement Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Application Statement j.garrett
- Re: Application Statement Juha Heinanen
- Re: Application Statement Jeffrey A. Buffum - Bay Networks
- Re: Application Statement j.garrett
- Application Statement yakov
- Application Statement yakov
- Re: Application Statement Bruce Cole
- Application Statement yakov
- Re: Application Statement yakov
- Re: Application Statement Bruce Cole
- Re: Application Statement Bruce Cole
- Re: Application Statement j.garrett
- Re: Application Statement Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Application Statement j.garrett
- Re: Application Statement Curtis Villamizar
- Application Statement yakov
- Application Statement yakov
- Re: Application Statement Ross Callon
- Re: Application Statement Ted Matsumura
- Application Statement dhc2