The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

[James Watt <james@ca.newbridge.com>]

Tim Salo writes:
+----------
|> My observation would be that I would prefer the complexity to be in the
|> server, not all of the clients.
|
|I strongly agree.
|
|> I would suggest that if the client speaks NHRP, it should always do so.  If
|> the NHRP server doesn't provide an answer (doesn't have one, doesn't want
|> to, etc.) then the client should ATMARP.
|
|I would like to see the client implement a single protocol for 
|address/next hop resolution both within a LIS and across LIS boundries.
+-------
Me too. In a message which crossed, I noted I should have not written the
second sentence.

+---------
|> This would suggest that most NHRP servers should also be ATMARP servers and
|> thus be able to answer all questions with one request, not two.
|
|I think that we should ensure that NHRP servers always have complete
|information, so that an ATMARP request after an unsuccessful NHRP query
|is not needed.
+-------
Yes - that is what I intended (but then I went and messed it up).

Regards,
-james

____________________________________________________________________________
James W. Watt,     james@newbridge.com                   Ph: +1 613 591-3600
Newbridge Networks 600 March Rd Kanata ON Canada K2K 2E6 FAX:+1 613 591-3680