Re: [Dime] [dime] #32: Sequence-Number Time-Stamp values within OC-OLR

[Steve Donovan <[e-mail]>]

How the sequence number is implemented is an implementation decision. 
There is no reason to mandate that is be an NTP timestamp.  That should
be included only as one way of addressing the requirement.

Steve

On 2/4/14 10:27 PM, Nirav Salot (nsalot) wrote:
> I also agree.
>
> Regards,
> Nirav.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DiME [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 11:50 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #32: Sequence-Number Time-Stamp values within OC-OLR
>
> The existing wording seems actually fuzzy.
> If it is "like an NTP timestamp", be proud and say it loud!
>
> In summary: ok with the proposal if it clarifies this handling of this sequence-number.
>
> Lionel
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : dime issue tracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : mardi 4 février 2014 09:50
> À : MORAND Lionel IMT/OLN
> Cc : [e-mail]
> Objet : [dime] #32: Sequence-Number Time-Stamp values within OC-OLR
>
> #32: Sequence-Number Time-Stamp values within OC-OLR
>
>  The -01 draft says in clause 4.4:
>     From the functionality point of view, the OC-Sequence-Number AVP MUST
>     be used as a non-volatile increasing counter between two overload
>     control endpoints (neglecting the fact that the contents of the AVP
>     is a 64-bit NTP timestamp [RFC5905]).  The sequence number is only
>     required to be unique between two overload control endpoints.
>     Sequence numbers are treated in uni-directional manner, i.e. two
>     sequence numbers on each direction between two endpoints are not
>     related or correlated.
>
>     When generating sequence numbers, the new sequence number MUST be
>     greater than any sequence number previously seen between two
>     endpoints within a time window that tolerates the wraparound of the
>     NTP timestamp (i.e. approximately 68 years).
>
>
>  With this mechanism it is difficult to get back to sync once you are out  of sync (for whatever reason).
>  It is proposed to mandate that the Sequence Number is a real 64-bit NTP  timestamp (RFC5905) indicating the point in time when the OLR was created,  and to mandate that  OLRs with a time stamp higher than time of reception  must be ignored by the reacting node.
>