The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

Cell Relay Retreat>List Archive>month:1994-Dec> msg00005



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

From ARP to NHRP....From ARP to NHRP....

  • From: Grenville Armitage <gja@thumper.bellcore.com>
  • From: Grenville Armitage <gja@thumper.bellcore.com>
  • Date: Wed, 07 Dec 1994 01:39:49 -0500
  • Cc: ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com


Peoples,

While contemplating my hotel room roof after the monday rolc
meeting I wondered about the apparent sentiment in the rolc meeting
the the rfc1577 to nhrp transition would involve three periods:

	- Hosts use LIS ARP Server
	- Hosts use LIS ARP Server
	- Hosts must/can choose between ARP Server or NHRP Server.
	- Hosts must/can choose between ARP Server or NHRP Server.
	- Hosts only have NHRP Server.

I wonder why we don't remodel the future evolution of rfc1577
and the nhrp draft so that evolution to nhrp does _not_ involve a
period of co-resident/parallel protocols.

The evolution that I see then goes something like this:

	- RFC1577 based solutions appear in the market, host
	  interface code built on query/response to ARP Server.
	  interface code built on query/response to ARP Server.
	- 'NHRP capability' (overlay of interconnected NHSs) evolves.
	- The ARP Server's of pre-existing LISs are upgraded as desired
	- The ARP Server's of pre-existing LISs are upgraded as desired
	  to re-write ARP requests that they cannot resolve locally
	  to re-write ARP requests that they cannot resolve locally
	  into NHRP requests which they then issue on behalf of
	  LIS hosts.
	(- NHRP-only hosts begin to appear, directly utilising their
	  'local' NHS.)

In essence the ARP Server 'front ends' for Classical hosts in the early
In essence the ARP Server 'front ends' for Classical hosts in the early
phase of NHRP deployment across the ATM cloud. 
phase of NHRP deployment across the ATM cloud. 

Actually, in the warm after glow of the IETF social, I even wonder
Actually, in the warm after glow of the IETF social, I even wonder
if we need to make hosts 'NHRP aware' is the pure sense. Perhaps we'd
get away with extending the rfc1577 ARP packet format to include some
get away with extending the rfc1577 ARP packet format to include some
dummy fields to pass back NHRP-ish information when available. I suppose
this makes NHRP a 'mechanism for ARP Servers to locate a cut-through 
this makes NHRP a 'mechanism for ARP Servers to locate a cut-through 
route' rather than a 'mechanism for hosts to locate a cut-through
route'.

Feel free to compose elegant objections that I will no doubt
understand fully after a good nights sleep :-)

cheers,
gja
---
Grenville Armitage, Member of Technical Staff, Bellcore.
Grenville Armitage, Member of Technical Staff, Bellcore.
MRE 2P-340, 445 South Street, Morristown, NJ, 07960-6438, USA
MRE 2P-340, 445 South Street, Morristown, NJ, 07960-6438, USA
Internet: gja@thumper.bellcore.com     Voice: +1 201 829 2635