Re: [Idr] Hold Negotiation

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the reply.

So you are saying it is not about a shorter Hold Time, but actually
just the value received in the time field.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 06:54:09AM -0800, Vishwas Manral wrote:
>  > The point that I raise is the value that is negotiated. If my
>  > configured HoldTime is 0 and the received Hold time is 90. What is the
>  > smaller HoldTime? Is it 0 (which is just a place holder which implies
>  > infinity Hold Time as the timers are not started at all - so in
>  > practice is a larger Hold Time than 90) or is it 90 (numerically
>  > bigger than 0 - but in practice a smaller value).
>
>  Here's the contorted logic I'd use to interpret this:
>
>  0 < 90.  Therefore the negotiated value would be 0.  This would mean
>  that neither party should send keepalives, etc.  However:
>
>  :   If the Hold Time field of the OPEN message is unacceptable, then the
>  :   Error Subcode MUST be set to Unacceptable Hold Time.  An
>  :   implementation MUST reject Hold Time values of one or two seconds.
>  :   An implementation MAY reject any proposed Hold Time.  An
>  :   implementation that accepts a Hold Time MUST use the negotiated value
>  :   for the Hold Time.
>
>  If I want to use keepalives and you don't, I'll send a notification.
>  Thus, regardless of whether or not the negotiated value would be zero,
>  it must still be acceptable to both parties.
>
>  -- Jeff
>
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr