The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

[gardo@vnet.ibm.com]

NHRP authors,

Apparently there is no strong opposition for this proposal; please
add this to the version-5 draft.  Thanks!

I propose that a destination address mask field be added to the
IP-specific part of the Purge packet.  With this feature, a much
more efficient purge can be performed; a single Purge packet can purge
a large number of cache entries, instead of sending a
large number of Purge packets...
I have not heard a strong technical reason against this proposal.
If there is one, please tell me; otherwise, let's add it.

>From a NHRP protocol standpoint, this Purge mask field should be
independent from the destination prefix extension found in
Request/Reply packets.

Here are the only arguments I've heard against this proposal, but I
do not think they are strong enough to stop this proposal:
 1) If a client uses the destination to purge his cache, a mask does not
    complicate things.  An additional bit-wise AND operation does not
    complicate a client.
 2) If the purge feature is only an optimization (an option that is not
    really required), then this should not add additional overhead in
    a minimal client implementation because these implementations
    can ignore Purge packets (only an optimization).

-- Russell