[Fwd: NHRP Document]

["Eric W. Gray" <[e-mail]>]

--- Begin Message ---

Jim,

	One of the things that came up at the MPOA interim meeting is
related to the current state of the NHRP document - we need to be able
to tell the difference between an NHRP query from an RSFG (NHS) on the
behalf of one EDFG from a similar query on the part of another EDFG.
This means that we need to include the ATM address of the originating
EDFG in the NHRP query that is re-originated by the RSFG on it behalf.

	From an NHRP perspective, this looks like an NHS with multiple
NBMA addresses.  I don't think that this is a problem with NHRP (it 
does allow an NHS to have multiple NBMA addresses, doesn't it?) except
for one tiny little thing:  the addresses given in these NHRP queries 
must not be used for routing-related protocol interactions - including 
NHRP - by any NHS that sees this query in route.  This shouldn't be too 
big a deal as I believe that we had said - at the last IETF - that the 
NHRP response has to be returned using the internetwork address (as 
opposed to the NBMA address); however, it is probably worth while to 
make it explicit that the use of these addresses is not to be construed 
to mean that the they are usable for route updates, etc.  Essentially, 
it comes down to this - is there an explicit mechanism by which NHSs 
become aware of those NBMA addresses which may be used to conduct NHRP
and routing business with their neighbors as distinguishable from other
NBMA addresses which may only be used for forwarding?

--
Eric Gray

--- End Message ---