IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Manet-dt] Valid routes vs. active routes

"Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@nokia.com> Fri, 25 August 2006 22:06 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GGjpF-0008H0-40; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:06:53 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GGjpE-0008FU-3s for manet-dt@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:06:52 -0400
Received: from mgw-ext13.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GGjpC-0002L6-Mb for manet-dt@ietf.org; Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:06:52 -0400
Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-ext13.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.10/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k7PM6mr5026579; Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:06:49 +0300
Received: from daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.112]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:05:49 +0300
Received: from daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.113]) by daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:05:45 -0500
Received: from [10.241.174.150] ([10.241.174.150]) by daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:05:40 -0500
Message-ID: <44EF7433.5060200@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:05:39 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins@nokia.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ext Ian Chakeres <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>
References: <374005f30608121539x76d7a943v8e7cb5c4261a308c@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <374005f30608121539x76d7a943v8e7cb5c4261a308c@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Aug 2006 22:05:40.0554 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A439AA0:01C6C892]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: karim.seada@nokia.com, manet-dt@ietf.org
Subject: [Manet-dt] Valid routes vs. active routes
X-BeenThere: manet-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: MANET Design Team <manet-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/manet-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:manet-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt>, <mailto:manet-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: manet-dt-bounces@ietf.org

Hello Ian,

There is not a definition for "active" route in the DYMO
specification.  I think we should distinguish "active" from
"valid".  The definition of "valid" seems correct.  We can
say that a route is active if it is valid and it has been used.

Then we can say that a RERR is only issued for active
routes.  A RERR does not have to be issued for valid
routes when they are broken.  This behavior is already
in the specification, but with the proper definition for
active I think it is more easily stated.

Regards,
Charlie P.


_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
Manet-dt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email