Re: R2R NHRP - ensuring far end is alive

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com> Mon, 06 November 1995 20:05 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20446; 6 Nov 95 15:05 EST
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20440; 6 Nov 95 15:05 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 OAA21841; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 14:38:33 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26356 for rolc-out; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 14:42:58 -0500
Received: from guelah.nexen.com (guelah.nexen.com [204.249.96.19]) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA26347 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 14:42:55 -0500
Received: from hubbub.cisco.com (hubbub.cisco.com [198.92.30.32]) by guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA21778 for <rolc@nexen.com>; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 14:29:21 -0500
Received: from puli.cisco.com (puli.cisco.com [171.69.1.174]) by hubbub.cisco.com (8.6.12/CISCO.GATE.1.1) with SMTP id LAA14384; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 11:25:53 -0800
Message-Id: <199511061925.LAA14384@hubbub.cisco.com>
To: "M.J. Robinson" <92mjr1@eng.cam.ac.uk>
cc: rolc@nexen.com, yakov@cisco.com
Subject: Re: R2R NHRP - ensuring far end is alive
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 06 Nov 95 16:56:53 GMT." <Pine.HPP.3.91.951106162632.4765D-100000@tw100.eng.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 11:25:53 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
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/

Matt,

> Yakov (and other ROLCers),
> 	Your current R2R approach requires that "Once a shortcut is 
> established, the Requester needs to have some mechanism(s) to ensure that 
> the other end of the shortcut is alive."
> 	Possible mechanisms suggested are:
> (a) indications from the Data Link Layer
> (b) prescence of traffic in the reverse direction that comes with the Link 
> Layer address of the other end
> (c) keepalives sent by the other end
> 
> 	In some situations, keepalives may be the only option. 
> Additionally, a "hello" time (meaning as for OSPF) of the order of 10
> seconds might be required/desired. (For instance if IP encapsulated SNA is
> being sent to a mainframe which has two connections to the NBMA (for
> redundancy) ).
> 	I'm trying to understand how things would behave under such
> conditions. Especially, what is the impact of such a high rate of
> keepalives likely to be on both the network and routers ? 

You are certainly correct - in some situations keepalives may
be the only option. Moreover, these keepalives may be needed
not only for the R2R case, but for *all the cases* where a
destination is not on the NBMA network and there is more
than one path from the NBMA network to the destination.

In fact, one could observe that the problem we're trying to solve
is quite similar to the "dead router" detection problem.

Wrt to the impact on the network and routers, observe that the keepalive
traffic could (and probably should) be sent over the same shortcut
as the data. So, it is only the originator of the shortcut and
the egress router (the other end of the shortcut) that would be
involved. Also observe that the keepalive traffic is going to
be a very small fraction of the total traffic that would flow
through the shortcut, and handling of the keepalive traffic
is fairly straightforward (in terms of processing). So, the
expectation is that the amount of keepalive traffic would
be within the limits of available resources.

Yakov.