The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] NHRP purge nits
> From owner-rolc@nexen.com Wed Oct 25 09:05:48 1995 > To: rolc@nexen.com > Cc: luciani@nexen.com > Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 11:45:15 -0400 > From: James Luciani <luciani@nexen.com> Jim, Just some mindless editorial nits ... I think some of these will help re-use of this text for other (similar) purposes in the future. > Destination IP Address > The address of the target station (as if copied from the original > NHRP address resolution Request). This field holds the address Do you mean NHRP Request? Let's use the precise terminology as this is the meat of the protocol definition. > of the client whose routing information has (or is about to be) > changed. > > In the case when the purge request comes from a client, > this is the address of the client. In this case, when the NHS > receives the purge its removes its entry for that client. The > NHS then initiates a purge request to each station which > requested address resolution information for that client. > > In the case when the NHS notices a change in routing information > for a client which has registered with it, the NHS removes its > entry for that client. It then creates a purge packet in which > the Destination IP Address field is set to the address of the client. > The NHS then initiates a purge request to each station which > requested address resolution information for that client. > > Source IP Address > In the case when the purge request comes from a client, this field > contains the address of the client. > > When a client sends a purge request to its NHS, the NHS removes the > client's entry from the NHS's cache. The NHS then initiates a > purge request to each station which requested address resolution > information for that client. How about "Destination Resolution" rather than "address resolution"? The protocol is performing route selection and QoS lookups as well as address resolution. > When an NHS initiates a purge (as a result of a client's request > or as a result of noticing a routing change), the Source IP Address > field contains the address of the initiator of an NHRP address > resolution Request. Are you saying that Purge packets get forwarded by intermediate NHSs according to their *Source* IP address fields? This is slightly backwards but OK as long as we say that somewhere. Need some description of the forwarding rules that NHSs use for purge packets. .... > When a station receives an NHRP Purge request, it MUST discard any > previously cached information that matches the Source Address and Confusion here: does "station" = NHS as well as client? Do you mean "Source IP Address" or "Destination IP Address?". Isn't it the destination that is getting purged, not the source? > Request ID (when the Request ID is zero filled the match is made > based only on the Source Address). Ditto. > If a station receives a purge request when it does not contain a cache > entry for the client being purged, the receiving station MUST silently > discard the packet. Does "station" apply to clients only or does this rule apply to NHSs? > If the station wishes to reestablish communication with the > destination shortly after receiving a Purge request, it should make > an authoritative request in order to avoid any stale cache entries > that might be present in intermediate NHSs. (See section 6.2.2.) It > is recommended that authoritative requests be made for the duration > of the holding time of the old information. So I can't just delete a purged cache entry, I have to keep a record of it around for its previous holding time afterwards, just in case? Or should I always issue authoritative requests, just to be sure? Do you think this is a choice that should be left to client implementors? Why don't we just say "MUST" here? There's the usual caching problem here too - the cache is most useless just when it would be useful, during routing topology changes and so there will be a bunch of authoritative requests flying around at these times. > Regards, > -- Jim Luciani Andrew (representing the committee for thin, readable and implementable standards :-) ******************************************************************************** Andrew Smith TEL: +1 408 764 1574 Technology Synergy Unit FAX: +1 408 988 5525 Bay Networks, Inc. E-m: asmith@baynetworks.com Santa Clara, CA ******************************************************************************** |
|