Subject: Re: (ION) nhrp: Client proto addr?

From: "Paul Henri" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 May 1998 15:04 EDT

In message "Re: (ION) nhrp: Client proto addr?", 
[email-masked]' writes:

>Paul Henri wrote:

[snip]

>> - Of what use is the client proto address except in purge requests?
>> It would seem the requestor may just require a mapping between
>> destination ip address and atm next-hop. I don't see why the source
>> would care if the atm next-hop is that of a router or nhc.
>

[snip]

>The reason you need the correct protocol addresses is that they are
>what determines the overall route from source to destination. There
>could be several NBMA clouds between this source and destination,
>however. In fact, there might just be _one_ NBMA cloud, but shaped
>strangely, and the proper route from source to destination might
>just jump in and out of that single NBMA cloud.

It is clear that protocol addresses (source and destination) are
necessary in the mandatory part of the nhrp frame. However, the
question remains, why is it necessary to have a protocol address in
the *CIE* of the nhrp resolution reply (i.e. the Client Protocol
Address field)? The reply contains the nbma next-hop address for the
destination protocol address.

Doesn't the requester simply desire the *nbma* address of the
destination or egress router? So what if ip routed path leaves the
nbma network and re-enters? The egress router is the router at the
edge when the routed path *first* leaves the nbma network. If an
egress router is involved, why would anyone, especially the requester,
need its protocol address?

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

---

From: Albert Manfredi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 16:41:45 -0400

> need its protocol address?

Seems to me that use of the protocol addresses in the CIEs is to
permit the easy identification of the NHRP path. That way, you don't
rely on the NBMA addresses to identify the hops. Not so? That's the
way I read it, anyway, and this _is_ after all the IETF. Protocol
addresses matter.

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