Re: Ordering of NHRP extensions

[Paul_Koning/US/[e-mail]]

>> Is there any implied ordering of extensions in an NHRP packet?
>Good idea! :-)  I actually suggested this (via proxy of Andy Malis)
>at the last European based IETF.  I explicitly asked for 2 things:
>1) the extensions be placed in numerical order by type code

I hope not.  This might in a few cases speed up receive processing
slightly, at the cost of a more substantial hit in time and complexity
at the transmit end.

I assume here that you meant that the receiver is allowed to assume
order but is not expected to check it.  Clearly, requiring the receiver
to check an ordering rule is a really bad idea.  Note that in any case
your receiver has to be able to survive arrival of packets with out of
order options -- though it would not be required to do useful things
with such packets.

This sort of idea has been floated in other places and generally
rejected.  I think it should be rejected here as well.

 paul

!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
! Paul Koning, NI1D, C-24183
! 3Com Corporation, 1-3A, 118 Turnpike Road, Southborough MA 01772 USA
! phone: [phone], fax: [phone]
! email: [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
! Pgp:   27 81 A9 73 A6 0B B3 BE 18 A3 BF DD 1A 59 51 75
!-----------------------------------------------------------------------
! "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over 
!  any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent
!  harm to others.  His own good, either physical or moral, is not
!  a sufficient warrant."    -- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" 1859