The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

Cell Relay Retreat>List Archive>month:1996-May> msg00144



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

Maybe RSVP and Q.2931, but not NHRP

  • From: fddi1-ncd@BayNetworks.com (Andrew Smith)
  • Date: Wed, 29 May 96 18:53:59 PDT
  • Cc: ion@nexen.com

> Let me get this right: Juha is offering i-pnni as a substitute for r2r
> nhrp?  Would hosts still use nhrp in that scenario?

I-PNNI would make a pretty reasonable alternative to r2r NHRP in your scenario
given some constraints, as Joel pointed out. In particular, as soon as you need
to use a hierarchy to scale (i.e. hide) information then you will need a query
like NHRP to get beyond the boundary. In something of the scale you describe
this should not be necessary.

Hosts would likely use NHRP (most of the complexity disappears when the clients
are not routers) but could also use I-PNNI with advantage, particularly when dual-
homed for redundancy or load-sharing reasons (think "big servers" - NT Server 
implements OSPF already; ask your favourite O/S vendor's local sales rep about 
their plans for I-PNNI).
 
> Sam Wilson
 
Andrew

********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith					TEL:	+1 408 764 1574
Bay Networks, Inc. 				FAX:	+1 408 988 5525
Santa Clara, CA					E-m:	asmith@baynetworks.com
********************************************************************************