Re: router-router NHRP

[Dimitry Haskin <[e-mail]>]

> Subject: Re: router-router NHRP 
> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 95 09:23:56 PST
> From: Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>
> 
> Dimitry,
> > If I understand your R2R NHRP proposal correctly, it requires that *all*
> > participating routers keep in their FIBs all routes that might be
> > distributed by the intra-domain protocol of choice regardless if these
> > routes are actually being used for shortcuts or not.
> 
> I don't think my proposal requires this.
> 
> Yakov.
> 

Yakov,

I guess I misunderstood implications of the "first NHRP target
constraint" of your proposal:

 "This document constrains an NHRP target by requiring that all the
  destinations covered by the target must form a subset of the NLRI of at
  least one route in the Forwarding Information Base (FIB) of the router
  that either originates, or propagates an NHRP Request. For the rest of
  the document we'll refer to this as the "first NHRP target
  constraint".  A router can originate and/or propagate an NHRP Request
  only if the NHRP target of the Request does not violate the first NHRP
  target constraint.

  A route (from a local FIB) whose NLRI forms a minimal superset of all
  the destinations covered by the NHRP target is called an "NHRP
  forwarding route". Observe, that by definition the set of destinations
  covered by an NHRP target always exhibits a subset relation to the set
  of destinations covered by the NHRP forwarding route associated with
  the target."

Doesn't it require a forwarder to have a route for each potential target?
If so, in many cases where a large scale aggregation is not possible, it could
be a lot of routes.

I admit that I might somehow misread your proposal in the respect to
the "first constraint".  In this case more elaboration (for the dark masses :)
would be helpful.

Thanks,
  Dimitry

P.S. As it was kindly pointed out there is a typo in my original message:

      [I would mind if the choice... 

   should be

      [I would NOT mind if the choice...