Re: Re: Why MinRouteAdverInterval is recommended 30
"Qiu Jian" <qiu@ns.6test.edu.cn> Sat, 02 November 2002 01:39 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 UAA11966 for <idr-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 20:39:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 99E0A912C8; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 20:42:12 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 44B01912C7; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 20:42:12 -0500 (EST)
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 2F627912C8 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 20:42:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 1A6B45DDEE; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 20:42:10 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from sword.6test.edu.cn (unknown [202.38.99.37]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id B7D205DDCB for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 20:42:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 46870 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2002 01:37:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO sword) (166.111.65.214) by 202.38.99.37 with SMTP; 2 Nov 2002 01:37:11 -0000
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 09:43:53 +0800
From: Qiu Jian <qiu@ns.6test.edu.cn>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
Cc: "idr@merit.edu" <idr@merit.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: Why MinRouteAdverInterval is recommended 30
Organization: CERNET
X-mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"
Message-Id: <20021102014208.B7D205DDCB@segue.merit.edu>
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id UAA11966
Hello,Jeffrey Haas ======= On 2002-11-01 10:29:00 you wrote: ======= >This is a matter of some debate. > That means the value of MinRouteAdver is totally empirical? > >Theoretically, this means that if a route is still reachable (feasible), >then you will delay sending changes to the route. This will >cause the entire routing system (in this case, possibly the Internet) >to have potential for blackholes and forwarding loops due to these >timers for some period of time. The following paper goes into >some details on this: > >http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm2000/conf/paper/sigcomm2000-5-2.pdf > >-- The paper said: Under a MinRouteAdver timer, a node must process all(n-1) announcements from its neighbors before it can send a new update. Does it mean the function of MinRouteAdver is to wait all the other update about a prefix before sending it? and 30 seconds is considered long enough to guarantee it. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Thanks. Best Regards, Qiu Jian qiu@ns.6test.edu.cn 2002-11-02