[pim] PIM bidir Offer_Period on long delay links
Teco Boot <teco.boot@logicacmg.com> Wed, 26 January 2005 17:27 UTC
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18559 for <pim-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:27:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ctqre-00049p-Up; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:21:58 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ctqcq-0003pL-GG for pim@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:06:40 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16670 for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:06:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail36.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.211]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Ctqtk-0004JD-FO for pim@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:24:11 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: teco.boot@logicacmg.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-21.tower-36.messagelabs.com!1106759161!13311546!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.4.5; banners=logicacmg.com,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [212.123.206.100]
Received: (qmail 14885 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2005 17:06:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO smtp2.cmg.com) (212.123.206.100) by server-21.tower-36.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2005 17:06:01 -0000
Received: from bnl-amv-mr01.bnl.group.cmg.com (bnl-amv-mr01.bnl.group.cmg.com [10.16.59.80] (may be forged)) by smtp2.cmg.com (8.12.9/8.12.3) with ESMTP id j0QH5m7x078767 for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:06:00 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from teco.boot@logicacmg.com)
Received: from nl-amv-route01.cmg.nl ([10.16.127.107]) by bnl-amv-mr01.bnl.group.cmg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:03:24 +0100
Received: by NL-AMV-ROUTE01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <DW59R64S>; Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:04:38 +0100
Message-ID: <69E2FE062AA0D411BE9B00306E00E152087856@NL-GRH-MAIL01>
From: Teco Boot <teco.boot@logicacmg.com>
To: "'pim@ietf.org'" <pim@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:04:28 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jan 2005 17:03:24.0000 (UTC) FILETIME=[F2191600:01C503C8]
X-Virus-Scanned: CMG - by AMaViS / NAI Virus Scan
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Subject: [pim] PIM bidir Offer_Period on long delay links
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: pim-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pim-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, The draft-ietf-pim-bidir-07.txt states an Offer_Period of 100ms. Is bidir applicable on long delay links like satcom (RTT ~600ms)? Another remark on the draft text, it doesn't define the tiebreaker on DF election with equal metrics for the offered RPA. The PIM-SM assert (section 4.6.3.) definition could be used in this case also, but I think it's better to update the text in the bidir specification specifying PIM-SM Assert rules in all cases. Regards, Teco Boot teco.boot@logicacmg.com This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you. _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim