The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

[gardo@vnet.ibm.com]

Jim,

>>  Things I did not address below are:
>...
>>   C) Russel's request to add a destination address mask field to the
>>      IP-specific part of the Purge packet.
>...
>>
>>On 'C', I'd prefer to just allow the destination prefix extension to
>>be included in the purge packet (which it currently is not) and
>>I would very much prefer to see this be optional and not a
>>requirement.  I do see value in it though.
>
>I prefer that the mask be added to the IP-specific mandatory
>part because it is not imposing any real additional overhead in the
>clients to perform a bit-wise AND with a mask when matching
>the destination address on a purge.

>I have one major concern about your proposal to add an extension
>to the Purge packet.  I'm concerned that putting the mask in the
>extension part will limit the flexibility of the purge feature.
>However, ...

I think putting it into an extension would be good if there is a way
for a client to tell the server which packet types it supports for
the extension.  It needs to be flexible enough to allow a client to
specify which packet types it supports for the destination prefix
extension.  Add two bits in the destination prefix extension that are
used when appending the extension to the Request packet.  Here is the
definition of the bits:

           R-bit: Client supports extension in Reply packets
           P-bit: Client supports extension in Purge packets

What do you think?

-- Russell