Subject: (ION) NHC as IP router

From: "Albert Manfredi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 17:43:50 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Archana Nehru <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: (ION) RFC 2332 again

>No I was only referring to an NHC on a router
>without any NHS.   NHS------NHC-----SUBNET
>here NHS and NHC are both routers and have only
>NHS and NHC functionality respectively. If the NHC
>was an NHS-NHC , then probably there was no
>need for NHC to register the subnet with  the NHS,
>since the NHS-NHC combination could as well reply
>to the resolution request.

Well, in that case, RFC 2332 states, in section 4, "If a served NHC
is attached to several subnetworks [so we are talking about an IP
router box here], the router/route server coresident with the
serving NHS may also be configured to advertise routing information
to such NHCs."

In other words, it seems to me that this flavor of NHC looks like an
extension to its serving NHS, and again it seems to me that the NHS
would most certainly _have_ to revise its prefix length in
responding to NHRP requests, unless for some (security?) reason that
NHC router must remain in the path at all cost.

That is, if a new ATM box is introduced into the ATM cloud, and this
box is an IP router (call it R), then if this R box is not also an
NHS, its serving NHS will have to respond with R's ATM address
whenever certain shortcuts are requested - shortcuts to IP subnets
attached to R.

Hence, it seems clear that the NHS will have to revisit its
prefixes. Not so (modulo the security consideration)?

Bert
[email-masked]

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