[Idr] Hold Negotiation
"Vishwas Manral" <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 08 March 2008 14:21 UTC
Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79C128E6A8; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 06:21:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G3Ih8p+7e4A3; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 06:21:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9423828C252; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 05:57:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0ED28C99A for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 05:57:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wLaVMhq6GczR for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 05:57:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6AD293E04 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 18:18:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 25so868284wfa.31 for <idr@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:17:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=zJBA7KirxWVvuEidX9GKkJV2jGKzWSCc5hh0Oc5Pv1o=; b=pR0EnKBCr+50wCaqSmEofU7HGx6v5wohz2bvHCWFQ5DqVj/983AAKl9PspkHyyeH7aeYDWAhb5Xx1pwXmeE3zmqBhi3AcFAyRqWSdzykiuby118618a7rSxJo496WSxhloVqFE8uA+pD0r7y1zPecIxTizyAocp2N0iGduJ0idI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=x62cBrdmCue5nk832w0Cycz7stClHJ3yQrtYVFY/N8uu/VyBCVBHL8zsDWO0cnUs2qV/ztsXlJbbdu/njbLg7MmwaggfS5EF1WbsE/QIy2dC9C35Z2jt50uSsbsZmoKggT8+wWXiVaYTw+h+zhESz0voJybxHUdINKMdsOjbFsw=
Received: by 10.142.133.15 with SMTP id g15mr1200224wfd.42.1204942677987; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:17:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.143.164.14 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 18:17:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <77ead0ec0803071817r24547e10yb3638d31d2e183bd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:17:57 -0800
From: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
To: shares@ghs.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: idr <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] Hold Negotiation
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Sue/ Yakov, I found an ambiguity in the Hold Time negotiation for the value of 0 received. The idea of negotiation of the Hold time is that if we will use the smaller of the two values of Hold time to be the actual Hold Time. A value of 0, actually means the Maximum Hold time. So in case we get a value of 0 from the neighbor, should we use the value of Hold time as 0(a smaller numeric value - but a bigger value as such) or should we use the value of (x > 0) as it is logically lesser than the value of 0 Hold time. I would think we want the latter. Do let me know what you think? Thanks, Vishwas _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
- [Idr] Hold Negotiation Vishwas Manral
- Re: [Idr] Hold Negotiation Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] Hold Negotiation Vishwas Manral
- Re: [Idr] Hold Negotiation Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Idr] Hold Negotiation Danny McPherson
- Re: [Idr] Hold Negotiation Vishwas Manral