Re: regarding ospf las flushing .....

mike shand <mshand@CISCO.COM> Thu, 09 June 2005 10:07 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA09123 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 06:07:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( by (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <>; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 6:07:43 -0400
Received: by PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.3) with spool id 74689353 for OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 06:07:40 -0400
Received: from by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0l) with TCP; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 06:01:10 -0400
Received: from ( by with ESMTP; 09 Jun 2005 12:01:07 +0200
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j59A147F002087 for <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:01:04 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA20560; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:01:03 +0100 (BST)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
References: <000701c56c04$eddbc840$> <000701c56c04$eddbc840$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:01:02 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
From: mike shand <mshand@CISCO.COM>
Subject: Re: regarding ospf las flushing .....
In-Reply-To: <>
Precedence: list

Of course a certain other Link State Protocol has always specified that 
this is what you should do i.e. send only the header, (not that all 
implementations follow the spec in this regard:-)


At 00:51 09/06/2005, Padma Pillay-Esnault wrote:
>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.
>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 
>>If you agree with this idea, I would like to prepare a small draft on this.