Re: [Idr] Hold Negotiation

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Mon, 10 March 2008 14:19 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 B1C0928E6B1; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, 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 mXYQT6egv7i3; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BBA293915; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
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 67F04293E1A for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
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 gIFE2KbBp4rz for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from manos.scc.mi.org (manos.scc.mi.org [204.11.140.250]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC6A2939F5 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 06:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by manos.scc.mi.org (Postfix, from userid 1025) id 15D254E4D5; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:07:02 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:07:02 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Vishwas Manral <vishwas.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080310130701.GA31194@scc.mi.org>
References: <77ead0ec0803071817r24547e10yb3638d31d2e183bd@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <77ead0ec0803071817r24547e10yb3638d31d2e183bd@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Cc: idr <idr@ietf.org>, shares@ghs.com
Subject: Re: [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

On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 06:17:57PM -0800, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> 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?

RFC 4271 says the following:
: If the negotiated hold time value is zero, then the HoldTimer and
: KeepaliveTimer are not started.

This is supported at various points throughout the FSM documentation
calling out the case of non-zero and zero.  For example:

:         - if the HoldTimer initial value is non-zero,
:             - starts the KeepaliveTimer with the initial value and
:             - resets the HoldTimer to the negotiated value,
:           else, if the HoldTimer initial value is zero,
:             - resets the KeepaliveTimer and
:             - resets the HoldTimer value to zero,
:         - and changes its state to OpenConfirm.

So, while non-zero values are a negotiated timer the zero case is
intended to shut off the timers.

-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr