NHRP + LIS awareness

Bryan Gleeson <bryang@eng.adaptec.com> Thu, 16 November 1995 02:23 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27520; 15 Nov 95 21:23 EST
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27516; 15 Nov 95 21:23 EST
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.99.5]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA16289; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 20:51:44 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18278 for rolc-out; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 21:04:28 -0500
Received: from nexen.nexen.com (nexen.nexen.com [204.249.96.18]) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA18269 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 21:04:25 -0500
Received: from milpitas.adaptec.com (milpitas.adaptec.com [162.62.21.1]) by nexen.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18296 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 21:01:52 -0500
Received: from eng.adaptec.com ([162.62.20.6]) by milpitas.adaptec.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA00217; Wed, 15 Nov 95 17:58:44 PST
Received: from glasnevin by eng.adaptec.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA25362; Wed, 15 Nov 95 18:00:43 PST
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 18:00:43 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bryan Gleeson <bryang@eng.adaptec.com>
Message-Id: <9511160200.AA25362@eng.adaptec.com>
To: rolc@nexen.com
Subject: NHRP + LIS awareness
X-Orig-Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: Submissions to rolc@nexen.com
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to rolc-request@nexen.com
X-Info: Archives for rolc via ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-mail-archive/rolc/

Hi all,

The nhrp-05 draft specifies the following station behaviour

"Station S first determines the next hop to station D
through normal routing processes. If the next hop is reachable 
through its NBMA interface, S constructs an NHRP request packet
containing station D's IP address as the target destination"

Is there any reason why a station could not choose to use
the next hop IP address as the target destination in the
NHRP request packet for some IP flows ? The spec is written 
as if stations will always attempt to short-cut - can this 
be a may instead of a must ?


Also let's assume that host station S is aware of its own 
LIS / subnet. It would thus seem possible to use NHRP for both
intra-LIS and inter-LIS transfer without the host necessarily
having a netmask of all 1s, and the consequent undesirable
proliferation of host routes in the network. Routers would
be able to do address aggregation, and NHRP could be used
as a perfectly good intra-LIS address resolution protocol.
Are there problems with any of this ?


Regards,
Bryan Gleeson
Adaptec.