Re: Update to OSPF Hello procedure[draft-kou-ospf-immediately-replying-hello-00.txt]

[Erblichs <[e-mail]>]

Paul Jakama, et al,

Paul Jakma wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Zengjie Kou wrote:
> 
> >> /independent/ of the Hello-Interval timer? (ie dont set or reset
> >> the interface's Hello timer because of any Immediate Hello sent).
> >> Otherwise, there'll be strong tendency for the HelloInterval
> >> timers across routers to latch. Not sure how much this matters.
> 
> > Yes, Immediate Hello is independent of HelloInterval timer.
> > It is in favor of compatibility.
> 
> Ok, should the draft then explicitely note that Immediate-Hello
> ideally should not affect (e.g. reset) any hello timer? (so as to
> avoid the timed-interval hello synchronising).

	Could I add that, independent of whether a hello is
	immediately sent upon link up... That the hello timer's
	t1 (2nd hello) pkt be randomly picked between 0 and
	the hello interval. Then the subsequent hellos be sent
	at the agreed upon interval.

	This should allow a group of routers to independently ramdomize
	their hello pkts during the agreed upon hello interval.

	Mitchell Erblich
> 
> > If Immediate Hello is multicast, all routers attached the ospf
> > networks will handle all Immediate hellos,which consumes lots of
> > cost. So, unicast is an appropriate mechanism which finishes all in
> > the peer of sending hello.
> 
> It will have a higher cost though.
> 
> regards,
> --
> Paul Jakma      [e-mail]   [e-mail]  Key ID: 64A2FF6A
> Fortune:
> "Well hello there Charlie Brown, you blockhead."
> -- Lucy Van Pelt