IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on FSM

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com> Fri, 18 January 2002 15:36 UTC

Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA24358 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:36:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id 8699291318; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:36:25 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 4FE4491319; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:36:25 -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 504F591318 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:36:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 2952F5DDA3; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:36:24 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from presque.djinesys.com (presque.djinesys.com [198.108.88.2]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4DC35DDB6 for <idr@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:36:23 -0500 (EST)
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 g0IFa6309862; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:36:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhaas@nexthop.com)
Received: (from jhaas@localhost) by jhaas.nexthop.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id g0IFa5k29145; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:36:05 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:36:05 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@nexthop.com>
To: Alex Zinin <azinin@nexsi.com>
Cc: Kunihiro Ishiguro <kunihiro@zebra.org>, idr@merit.edu, Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on FSM
Message-ID: <20020118103605.G20541@nexthop.com>
References: <5.0.0.25.0.20020116090028.039d2fa8@mail.nexthop.com> <20020115140711.GA23937@opentransit.net> <20020114123700.C7761@nexthop.com> <200201141750.g0EHo3634958@merlot.juniper.net> <87advfjcqi.wl@vaio.zebra.org> <5.0.0.25.0.20020116181115.03ea46f8@mail.nexthop.com> <195204309992.20020116162916@nexsi.com> <m2wuyhbxvd.wl@titanium.zebra.org> <145212436838.20020116184444@nexsi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <145212436838.20020116184444@nexsi.com>; from azinin@nexsi.com on Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 06:44:44PM -0800
X-NextHop-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 06:44:44PM -0800, Alex Zinin wrote:
> No strong opinion on this.
> If exponential back-off is optional and has been implemented
> in some implementations, I think it can stay in the main spec.

Implementation note: GateD currently uses a step function rather
than fully exponential backoff, but we do backoff.

> Alex.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email