The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

Cell Relay Retreat>List Archive>month:1995-Oct> msg00064



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

more flexible feature

  • From: gardo@vnet.ibm.com
  • Date: Wed, 25 Oct 95 10:17:07 EDT
  • cc: rolc@nexen.com, luciani@nexen.com, genecox@vnet.ibm.com
  • Ref: Your note of Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:30:31 -0400
  • X-Orig-Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com

Eric,
Do you (or anyone) see any real bugs in this change (add a mask)?
To summarize the change:  Add a mask field alongside the IP destination
field in the Purge packet.  No one has pointed out any real bugs
with this change...  This change adds *flexibility* to the purge feature.

I believe the comments you made about optimization are correct.

> Correct me if I am wrong, but I hadn't heard that any client could
> ignore purge messages.  In saying that purge protocol is an
> optimization, it was my understanding that the use of purge messages
> would be useful in reducing the effect of bad information retained by
> NHRP components but could not be relied on.  I believe that the issuer
> of a purge message can reasonably expect it to be used by any
> component that receives it.

-- Russell