Re: Software upgradation time

Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com> Thu, 29 May 2003 10:36 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25360 for <routing-discussion-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2003 06:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TATUB08257; Thu, 29 May 2003 06:29:30 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4TARkB08223 for <routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2003 06:27:46 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25164 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2003 06:27:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19LKbj-000556-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Thu, 29 May 2003 06:26:03 -0400
Received: from ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com ([24.93.67.83]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19LKbi-000553-00 for routing-discussion@ietf.org; Thu, 29 May 2003 06:26:02 -0400
Received: from redback.com (rdu162-241-056.nc.rr.com [24.162.241.56]) by ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h4TAP8Zh008269; Thu, 29 May 2003 06:25:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3ED5E028.2040302@redback.com>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Karthikeyan Subramaniam <keyans@rediffmail.com>
CC: routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Software upgradation time
References: <20030529065408.32042.qmail@webmail26.rediffmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list <routing-discussion.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/routing-discussion/>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 06:25:44 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Karthikeyan Subramaniam wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>    I have doubt about restart timer value in protocols.
> 
> In OSPF default restart timer is specified as 120 seconds in the draft
> "draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-07.txt" and in the case of BGP default
> restart timer should not be greater than the HOLDTIME(suggested value as
> per RFC 1771 is 90 secs)carried in OPEN.
> 
> Can control software  be upgraded within 120/90 seconds?

I guess that depends on your implementation and the type of upgrade. If
your software is modular it is certainly enough time for an incremental
upgrade or a switchover to a redundant control processor.


> On what basis
> this timer value has been fixed?

This was thought to be an upper bound on restart time, redistribution, and
synchronization with other protocols. The restart should complete much sooner.
Note the timer value is configurable.

> 
> with regards,
> S.Karthikeyan.
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________
> Get www. mycompany .com and 5 matching email ids.
> Just Rs. 1499/ year.
> Click here http://www.rediffmailpro.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> routing-discussion@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
> 


-- 
Acee

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion