Re: nhrp-05 - Purge packets

[James Luciani <[e-mail]>]

Andrew,

> > > Doesn't the receiver also have to match on some other things e.g.
> > 
> > I am strongly against keeping this much state around on a per cache entry
> > basis.  I disagee. (28 bytes for source info X number of cache entries).
> 
> Sorry, but the protocol has to work correctly. Life's tough. If you can show
> that it works correctly without these checks under conditions where the NHS is 
> failing over then that's fine. I don't want to see another 1/2-engineered
> protocol out there: we have enough of those around here already.

Oh come on. Because I don't believe that we should cache every single bit
of information does not mean that the protocol is broken.

Also, I screwed up.  I meant to say that I strongly disagreed with NBMA information
being cached but that the internetworking layer address information would 
be quite agreeable to me. In fact, I like the idea of saving the IP
address not that this is any proof against spoofing but it does prevent 
some accidental purges.

Regards,
-- Jim Luciani
__________________________________________________________________________
James V. Luciani    Ascom Nexion                    voice: [phone]
[e-mail]   289 Great Rd., Acton MA 01720   FAX: [phone]