The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

[James Luciani <luciani@nexen.com>]

Russel,
  I did not hear a consensus on this issue!  On the other hand, I am
happy with the comments that I made.  If you notice, I changed very
little of the purge packet (except that necessary to be consistent
with IPMC) since there was no clear consensus (note I left the Ack
in even though you already know my feelings on the subject).
FYI.  I am hearing that some folks want the purge to be acked
for the R2R case which is ok with me but we need to carefully state
the paramters here and get true consensus before commiting things to
a draft.
> >Folks,
> >
> >Can a Purge message carry optional extensions, and specifically the
> >Destination Mask extension ? If not, then how one could purge a shortcut
> >to an address prefix ?
> >
> >Yakov.
> 
> I thought the following change was going to be added to the draft so
> that the mask could be sent in a Purge, but I do not see the
> text that Jim proposed in the latest draft (see Jim's comments below):
> 
> James Luciani wrote:
> >To: shur@arch4.ho.att.com
> >Subject: Re: Purge packet
> >In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:23:41 EDT."
> >             <9510161323.AA18375@dahlia.ho.att.com>
> >cc: rolc@nexen.com
> >Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:24:56 -0400
> >From: James Luciani <luciani@nexen.com>
> >Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com
> >[...]
> >Also, the Destination Prefix Extension as of V4 (and alpha v5) can
> >only be in the request and reply packets, (read it closely :-( ), so
> >we need to change that if we go down this path.  Also, we do not want
> >the prefix as part of the purge packet per se because we want to move
> >toward a multiprotocol internetworking layer version of NHRP (i.e.,
> >NHRP for MPON (my new acronym for Multi-Protocol Over NBMA :-) )) and
> >the internetworking protocol layer address length will be different
> >from protocol to protocol which argues for a varying length field.  We
> >also probably don't want to complicate minimum functionality clients
> >and servers (you'll note that the prefix extension is a
> >"discretionary" extention) so having the prefix as part of the packet
> >per se is less desirable.
> >
> >An example of new text for the extension follows:
> >
> >5.7.1  Destination Prefix Extension (IPv4-Specific)
> >
> >  Discretionary = 1
> >  Type = 1
> >  Length = 1
> >
> >  This extension is used to indicate that the information carried in an
> >  NHRP Reply/Purge pertains to an equivalence class of internetwork layer destination
> >  addresses rather than just the internetwork layer destination address
> >  specified in the request.
> >
> >etc...
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >-- Jim Luciani
> >__________________________________________________________________________
> >James V. Luciani    Ascom Nexion                    voice: +1 508 266-3450
> >luciani@nexen.com   289 Great Rd., Acton MA 01720   FAX: +1 508 266-2300
> 
> -- Russell