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

[Andrew Smith <[e-mail]>]

> From [e-mail] Fri Nov  3 08:36:31 1995
> From: [e-mail]
> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 11:31:50 -0500
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Chris,

>    I think that we need to include the ablility to support a mask.  Not only
> would this reduce the traffic load (which is probably not the best argument 
> for something like this),

That would be, for me, the *only* reason to include this feature!

> but will also add flexability to the spec that 
> allows for some innovations in the implementations.  

Come on - what are we building here, a research toy or a robust
protocol for our customers to use in real networks?

>    I agree with Andrew and would like to see it as a MANDATORY part of 
> the spec.  I think this feature would add a great deal of flexability
> without requiring too much additional work on the client side. 

I see flexibility as a bug, not a feature.
...
>    I propose put the mask in the mandatory part of the purge packet and 
> requiring all client to support it.  This gets us away from any discussions 
> of the semantics of placing extensions in the purge packet, which is kind 
> of messy anyway.  

Well, at least we reach the same conclusion :-)

> 
> - chris
>

Andrew


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