From: Erblichs (erblichsEARTHLINK.NET)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 17:03:01 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Kiretti Kompella,

        Of all the items that I mentioned, I think one of the main
        items deals with a sub-second (microsec to millisec)
        interval values.

        A negotation like interval determination would probably
        be number one for me. Assuming that you would not find
        it beneficial for different intervals being set, I would
        think that if a router were recieving the said packet on
        a microsec timeframe and while under congestion or such,
        it should be able to inform the sender to bump up the
        interval to the highest value. Almost ala "BGP neighbor
        negotiation hold timer" but I am suggesting to a higher
        value.

        If after the "congestion event" has passed, the router
        sending the higher interval value, could adjust downwards
        to meet the first router's value, thus re-achieving the
        microsec earlier interval.

Mitchell Erblich
Sr. Network Software Engineer
=======================================

Kireeti Kompella wrote:
>
> Hi Mitchell,
>
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Erblichs wrote:
>
> > I think I missed why certain items are obmitted from this draft which
> > is very interesting... Just a few items :)
>
> This draft will be superceded by a new draft with similar goals
> but quite a different implementation. Unfortunately, we missed
> the ID cutoff, but the essence remains -- fast (sub-second) hellos,
> L2 independent, in principle L3 independent, and (the big change)
> routing protocol independent.
>
> We'll submit it after the IETF.
>
> Kireeti.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]