Subject: Re: (ION) RFC 2332 again

From: "Albert Manfredi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 19:16:07 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Archana Nehru <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: (ION) RFC 2332 again

>I am not clear why it is required that this NHC should also have an
>NHS?. The subnet behind the NHC is a stable one since it is
directly
>connected to the NHC and the NHC is the only way to reach the
>destinations in the subnet(no back doors).
>My assumption is that there is a traditional routing protocol like
RIP
>etc running that maintians proper routing information at the NHS.
The
>registration is just to let the NHS know that for all the
destinations
>behind the NHC, NHC will terminate the ATM connection. How does it
>disturb anything in the network?

Whether the IP router is an NHC or an NHS has nothing to do with
whether or not it implements RIP or OSPF, as far as I can tell. I
mean, for that matter there's nothing that forces an NHS to use
anything other than static routes for IP routing.

I guess I don't see what the advantage is of having an IP router
within an ATM cloud be anything other than an NHS. Why burden other
ATM boxes with responding to NHRP requests for this box's clients?
Isn't that the only question here?

If the number of subnets behind this NHC router grows, and
potentially other such NHC routers served by the one NHS, you are
only going to put a greater and greater burden on that NHS. To what
end?

Bert
[email-masked]

X-Info: To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
X-Info: 'unsubscribe ion' in the body of the message.

---

From: Archana Nehru <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 16:51:32 -0800

> Isn't that the only question here?

Yes, but probably some NHC just wants  to take advanatge of the fact
that there is a MPOA Server already in its neighbourhood and therefore
doesnot want to implement the NHS functionality etc.

Coming back to our original discussion here is what I inferred from the
feedback today:

1. If an NHC registers 1.2.3.4/16 with an NHS, it is never possible that
another NHC will register an overlapping subnet like 1.2.4.5/24 or even
host addresses like 1.2.3.5/32. I am still uncomfortable stating this
because the section 5.2.1 of RFC 2332 seems to suggest
otherwise(especially in the "Uniqueness bit section).I am not sure why
there is a need for codes like "Binding exists But is not unique", if
the above assumption is true.

2. When an NHS is replying to a resolution request for a registered
destination, the prefix length can directly be derived from the
registration itself.

3. Only in case the NHS is identifying itself as the egress router (e.g:
if the destination is off the ATM network etc), the NHS queries the
routing table to determine the associated prefix length.

If anything stated above is incorrect, please correct me.

-regards
Archana
________________________________________________________________________
Archana Nehru                     :  Trillium Digital Systems, Inc 
E-mail: [email-masked]       :  Los Angeles, California     
Phone: +1 310 442 9222     
________________________________________________________________________
X-Info: To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
X-Info: 'unsubscribe ion' in the body of the message.