Re: issue 8: final text
andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net Thu, 17 October 2002 21:36 UTC
Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26774 for <idr-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:36:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2CB5D912D6; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:38:19 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id EA167912D7; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:38:18 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029FB912D6 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:38:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id DE7775DDC9; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:38:17 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from demiurge.exodus.net (demiurge.exodus.net [216.32.171.82]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8184C5DD9D for <idr@merit.edu>; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 17:38:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from andrewl@localhost) by demiurge.exodus.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA05647; Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:35:19 -0700
From: andrewl@xix-w.bengi.exodus.net
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
Cc: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: issue 8: final text
Message-ID: <20021017143519.M20015@demiurge.exodus.net>
References: <200210171322.g9HDMVm99249@merlot.juniper.net> <20021017101821.B19138@nexthop.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20021017101821.B19138@nexthop.com>; from jhaas@nexthop.com on Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:18:21AM -0400
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
Jeff, Wouldn't this be the same as implementing the timers seperately with the same values? I would argue that it a vendor wishes to do so they may, but it doesn't affect interoperabilty or the text Yakov posted. The different values in the text are only "suggested defaults" so there is room of implementations to choose different default values. Andrew > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:22:31AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > With this in mind, I would suggest we mark this issue as closed. > > Generally agreed. > > But does anyone actually implement both timers? > GateD and Juniper have outdelay. > Cisco has neighbor advertisement-interval. > > In all cases, this is a general delay, not one that depends on > whether the route is being propagated or originated. > > > Yakov. > > -- > Jeff Haas > NextHop Technologies
- issue 8: final text Yakov Rekhter
- Re: issue 8: final text Jeffrey Haas
- Re: issue 8: final text andrewl
- Re: issue 8: final text Jeffrey Haas
- Re: issue 8: final text Yakov Rekhter
- Re: issue 8: final text Justin Fletcher
- RE: issue 8: final text Natale, Jonathan
- Re: issue 8: final text Jeffrey Haas
- RE: issue 8: final text Natale, Jonathan
- Re: issue 8: final text Yakov Rekhter