Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension

[Andrew Smith <[e-mail]>]

Russell,

> NHRP should be flexible enough to allow clients to specify which
> packet types (Reply and/or Purge) are supported for the destination
> prefix extension.

I think we should try to simplify the protocol by allowing fewer options.
I believe that the overall system complexity will be lower, even if 
individual client complexity is higher (think globally, act locally :-))
if we insist all clients behave the same in this regard.

> Therefore, why not add another extension called the "purge mask
> extension" with the discretionary flag = 0.  This way the destination
> prefix extension in the Reply can remain a discretionary extension.
> Maybe this proposal is acceptable?  This proposal addresses the
> following problems:

>   1) No flags in the dest prefix extension used in Reply packets
Good!

>   2) Destination Prefix Extension remains discretionary
Is it a feature or a bug that it is discretionary?

>   3) Only clients that support a purge with mask will receive this
>      extension
>   4) The new extension is not discretionary, never ignored...
You've effectively moved the problem back to a once-off initialisation-time
negotiation. I'd rather have no negotiation at all: make it mandatory!


> Good night!
> -- Russell
> 

Andrew


********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith					TEL:	[phone]
Technology Synergy 				FAX:	[phone]
Bay Networks, Inc.				E-m:	[e-mail]
Santa Clara, CA
********************************************************************************