Re: draft-kou-ospf-immediately-replying-hello-00.txt

[Zengjie Kou <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Acee
    Yes, you are correct.

     There are two cases as following when DR election.
 Case 1:
0----------------------------------------------------------------------------> Time
          init->2-way ----------------------- dr election
                                |
                                |
                          Sending Immediate Hello


Case 2:
0----------------------------------------------------------------------------> Time
          init->2-way ----------------------- dr election         |
                                                                  |
                                                                  |
                                                             Sending Immediate Hello

For case 2, the DR election result is same to RFC2328.
For case 1,the DR election result is different  to RFC2328.

In order to keep consistent to RFC2328, we may adopt case2 in immediate hello.

Thanks,
Zengjie


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Acee Lindem" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: draft-kou-ospf-immediately-replying-hello-00.txt


> Zengjie Kou wrote:
> 
>>Hi, Acee
>>    On p2p networks, there is no distinction between first coming or coming back up. The immediate hello is efficient in discover neighbors and convergence.
>>    On broadcast networks, when an interface first coming, DR election need to wait  wait-time. However, when an interface coming back up, DR election need not to wait wait-time(if BDR exists or the down interface is not DR). Here, only HelloInterval or     BackupSeen is needed to discover neighbor or convergence. Immediate hello avoids the HelloInterval or backupSeen on the case.
>>  
>>
> Hi Zengjie,
> 
> I think you're saying the hello when the DR/BDR interface state changes 
> is solely for
> the case when the BDR's interface flaps. Correct?
> 
>     BDR Interface goes down
>     Ex-BDR Interface comes back up
>     Ex-BDR send initial hello ----------------------------> Other 
> Routers on LAN
>     Ex-BDR goes to 2-way <----------------------------   Other Routers 
> Immediate reply
>                                                                                          
> New DR/BDR election
>     Triggers election on  Ex-BDR  <----------------------   New DR/BDR 
> send hello
> 
> Why not just process the neighbor change event before sending the 
> immediate reply?
> In other words, perform the new DR/BDR election before the immediate 
> reply hello?
>                   
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
>>Thanks,
>>Zengjie
>> 
>> 
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Acee Lindem" <[e-mail]>
>>To: <[e-mail]>
>>Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 10:10 PM
>>Subject: Re: draft-kou-ospf-immediately-replying-hello-00.txt
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>Zengjie Kou wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>Hi, Acee
>>>>  The empty hello mechanism that you refered is adopted by most OSPF implementations indeed when an interface first comes up.
>>>>I agree this. However, when an normal interface whose state is up goes down then up, immediate hello  is  effective by avoiding 
>>>>helloInterval or backupSeen.
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>Hi Zengjie,
>>>
>>>I don't think there should be a distinction between first coming or 
>>>coming back up.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Acee
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Zengjie
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>From: "Acee Lindem" <[e-mail]>
>>>>To: <[e-mail]>
>>>>Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:41 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: draft-kou-ospf-immediately-replying-hello-00.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>>>Zengjie Kou wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi, Acee,
>>>>>>  You are right, immediate hello does not provide the mechanism of detecting link down fast. But, immediate hello improve to discover neighbors when interface goes down then up. In practice, the requirement is needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>
>>>>>Hi Zengjie,
>>>>>
>>>>>Speaking strictly in terms of state machines, it seems the interface 
>>>>>would lose it's DR/BDR state
>>>>>when it goes down (and cannot send a hello). Wouldn't this scenario be 
>>>>>better handled
>>>>>by the empty hello many OSPF implementations send when an interface 
>>>>>first comes up?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>Acee
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>        
>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>Zengjie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>>>From: "Acee Lindem" <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>To: <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 11:15 PM
>>>>>>Subject: Re: draft-kou-ospf-immediately-replying-hello-00.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi Zengjie,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Zengjie Kou wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hi,Acee,
>>>>>>>> If a router interface whose role is changed(e.g.DR goes down), the router will notify all routers about the change by immediate hello.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is only when the DR/BDR knows that it is going down or the case 
>>>>>>>where the router
>>>>>>>priority is set to 0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For a router becoming DR/BDR, all the routers should elect the same DR/BDR
>>>>>>>so I don't see how it helps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>Acee
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>            
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>After all router get the change, election will be reprocessed. In contrast to normal hello, immediate hello avoid the backupSeen.
>>>>>>>>Namely, improving convergence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks a lot,
>>>>>>>>Zengjie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>>>>>From: "Acee Lindem" <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>To: <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 5:17 AM
>>>>>>>>Subject: draft-kou-ospf-immediately-replying-hello-00.txt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hi Zengjie,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Under what situations does having the router who changed to/from
>>>>>>>>>DR/BDR improve convergence (section 6.2)? Since DR/BDR election
>>>>>>>>>is a distributed algorithm dependent on the calculating routers state, it
>>>>>>>>>seems this won't help in all that many cases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>Acee
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          
>>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>
>>  
>>