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.
- NHRP + LIS awareness Bryan Gleeson
- Re: NHRP + LIS awareness Andrew Smith
- Re: NHRP + LIS awareness Bruce Cole