IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Graceful restart comment

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Mon, 29 April 2002 20:28 UTC

Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18563 for <idr-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:28:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 160BE9122C; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:27:50 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id D816A9122F; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:27:49 -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 C7B909122C for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:27:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id AB7555DED8; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:27:48 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from presque.djinesys.com (dns.nexthop.com [64.211.218.216]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FE35DE90 for <idr@merit.edu>; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:27:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from root@localhost) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id g3TKR3O11293; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:27:03 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@nexthop.com)
Received: from jhaas.nexthop.com (jhaas.nexthop.com [64.211.218.31]) by presque.djinesys.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g3TKR0O11283; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:27:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhaas@nexthop.com)
Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id g3TKR0H22628; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:27:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:26:59 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: Gargi Nalawade <gargi@cisco.com>
Cc: Enke Chen <enke@redback.com>, idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Graceful restart comment
Message-ID: <20020429162659.F21276@nexthop.com>
References: <20020429195659.4509F15D3C1@popserv1.redback.com> <3CCDA914.92FE8548@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <3CCDA914.92FE8548@cisco.com>; from gargi@cisco.com on Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 01:12:04PM -0700
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 01:12:04PM -0700, Gargi Nalawade wrote:
> I agree. The semantics of the NOTIFICATION message shouldnt be changed.
> We seem to need a new message type, say an INFORMATIONAL message that
> sends out information (notifies actually) to the peer, but doesnt 
> necessarily cause a session reset.

Other things this would be useful for is when packets are discarded
by an implementation where it is unnecessary to actually tear
down the peering session.  A good example is when a peer sends
you an MP_REACH_NLRI that you don't support, or you're going to
start ignoring a given AFI/SAFI because of errors in the PDU, but
are going to leave the peering session up.

> -Gargi

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email