Subject: [ANCP] Adjacency keep-alives

From: Maglione Roberta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:01:25 +0200

Hello,
        in San Francisco we started a discussion on Adjacency keep-alives.
Possible problem: the mismatched timers between peers.
One proposed approach was to make keepalive timer be negotiable.
Could you please provide your feedback and comments on this proposal?

Thanks and best regards,
Roberta

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

---

From: Sidd Aanand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:42:50 -0400

Hello Roberta,

After going through the minutes and the e-mail thread that started this
discussion
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ancp/current/msg00782.html), it
looks to me that the easiest way to avoid mismatched timers is to adopt
a simple scheme, where both ends look at the timer values in the
received (initial) adjacency message and agree to use the higher of the
two values. That is, the node that receives a higher timer value than
its own, will reply in its subsequent adjacency messages (such as
SYNACK, ACK) with the higher timer value. 

There doesn't seem to be a need to add another capability.

Having said the above, I should also add that we haven't seen any
problems with asymmetric timers. So I am not sure what the exact problem
is, but if we agree that we *need* to have symmetric timers, choosing a
simple scheme such as the one mentioned above should suffice.

Thanks,
Sidd Aanand
ECI Telecom.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Maglione Roberta
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ANCP] Adjacency keep-alives

Hello,
        in San Francisco we started a discussion on Adjacency
keep-alives.
Possible problem: the mismatched timers between peers.
One proposed approach was to make keepalive timer be negotiable.
Could you please provide your feedback and comments on this proposal?

Thanks and best regards,
Roberta

Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle
persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione
derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente
vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete
cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di
provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.

This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain
privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only.
Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and
any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.

_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp