The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

["Jeffrey A. Buffum - Bay Networks" <jbuffum@pobox.wellfleet.com>]

Curtis,

> The application statement MUST document situations in which the
> protocol is NOT applicable.  You fail to do this.  There has been
> considerable discussion of route loops and conclusion that NHRP has no
> way to avoid them.  There is an application disclaimer in NHRP itself
> in section 8.1 (Router to Router operation).  This topic is also
> treated in the informational RFC-1620.
> 
> A statement of the limitations belongs in the key features section.

I agree.

> The statement "For the purpose [of] loop prevention, it is advisable [to]
> avoid the non-NBMA paths between the routers where NHRP is being run."
> is total nonsense.  What you are stating is that if the Internet
> deploys an ATM network where multiple Internet service providers
> attach, those Internet service providers should never use routes
> learned from other media.  This is an unworkable attempt to whitewash
> the problem.
> 
> NHRP can only safely do address resolution.  You are trying to
> perpetuate the already disproven claim that NHRP is a viable
> replacement for routing.

While NHRP is certainly not a panacea for all the worlds routing problems, to
lobby for language whose only purpose is to denegrate this solution as 
unworthy 
of deployment is, in my opinion, excessive. There are a great many cases 
where NHRP would be very effective and where the routing loop problem would
not arise.

My opinion. Enough said.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jeffrey Buffum                  Phone:    508-436-8565              |
| R&D Alliances                   Internet: jbuffum@baynetworks.com   |
| Bay Networks                    Fax:      508-670-8154              |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+