Re: regarding ospf las flushing .....

[Quaizar Vohra <[e-mail]>]

But that major implementation had to revert to sending the entire
LSA (header + body) because another major implementation did not
like it :).

Have gone thru enought pain on this subject and would prefer not
having to do yet another revision. As far as efficiency and memory
is concerned, I wouldn't worry too much about it for this particular
case.

Quaizar


 > Anup
 > 
 > This was already done in a major implementation. I think it was a good idea.
 > 
 > You have to be careful though as this might break some implementation who
 > access the body of the lsa on flushing ( though I don't see why they 
 > would do that).
 > 
 > I'm for it and can collaborate. This can initiate a discussion on the list.
 > 
 > Padma
 > 
 > anup wrote:
 > 
 > > Hello Padma,
 > >
 > > As per RFC 2328, we send the lsa (header + body) to the peer though 
 > > the lsa is maxaged.
 > >
 > > Considering that the peer would not examine the lsa body if the lsa is 
 > > maxaged, *if we could send only the maxaged lsa’s header*, it would 
 > > reduce a lot of traffic as well as the protocol memory consumption 
 > > during flushing.
 > >
 > > If you agree with this idea, I would like to prepare a small draft on 
 > > this.
 > >
 > > Regards,
 > >
 > > Anup
 > >