Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt

alok <alok.dube@APARA.COM> Fri, 31 January 2003 18:11 UTC

Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14259 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:11:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from walnut (209.119.0.61) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <11.008C2F73@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:14:51 -0500
Received: from DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM by DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 590293 for OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:14:51 -0500
Received: from 64.106.140.220 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0i) with TCP; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 13:14:51 -0500
Received: from www.apara.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VIYDQ17918 for <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 00:04:13 +0530
Received: from alok ([203.124.140.100]) (authenticated) by www.apara.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0VIYBt17912; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 00:04:12 +0530
References: <3E37DE0C.8090206@redback.com> <067801c2c910$ba7fe9c0$81c802c0@alok> <3E3AB0C9.2070708@redback.com> <0c9501c2c94e$d595edc0$81c802c0@alok> <3E3AB865.7080906@redback.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Message-ID: <0e5301c2c954$ed5c9a20$81c802c0@alok>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 23:46:34 +0530
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
From: alok <alok.dube@APARA.COM>
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt
To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
Precedence: list

> alok wrote:
> > so As MR deepak said
> > ccing him
> >
> > no neighbour router suppout for this, (even one) nomore owrking of
draft?
>
> Almost - non-support from any neighbor that was fully adjacent prior to
> restart will result in the restarting router aborting graceful restart
when
> it detects a discrepancy in the router's intra-area LSAs (i.e., type 1 or
> 2).
>
 and that means : as the draft says....the "non helper" neighbour screws the
guy who supports the "helper"...why does life sound better on a black board?

so lets dump those "routers"?? who dont rely supporting this?...........??
uh oh>?
one screw up

can one reboot in :routerdeadinterval"......and why not?

my next RFC says .....make it to 60seconds?? possible?

yes..........if u "big" guys pass it ;o)