Subject: RE: issue 8: final text

From: "Natale, Jonathan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:09:45 -0400

Are you referring to the MinASOriginationInterval?  I also don't think
anybody uses it.  As far as the outdelay--that is not really mentioned in
the draft, right?  So maybe the former should be deprecated, and maybe the
latter should be added?  But I don't think either effects interoperability
though, so I'd say let's not change the spec based on these.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 10:18 AM
To: Yakov Rekhter
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: issue 8: final text

On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 06:22:31AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> With this in mind, I would suggest we mark this issue as closed.

Generally agreed.

But does anyone actually implement both timers?
GateD and Juniper have outdelay.
Cisco has neighbor advertisement-interval.

In all cases, this is a general delay, not one that depends on whether the
route is being propagated or originated.

> Yakov.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:31:56 -0400

On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 09:09:45AM -0400, Natale, Jonathan wrote:
> Are you referring to the MinASOriginationInterval?

I'm speaking of the two BGP timers, MinASOriginationInternal, 
MinRouteAdverInterval.

One deals with the propagation of the routes from outside of an AS,
the other deals with origination of routes in the AS.

> I also don't think
> the draft, right?

outdelay is GateD's implementation of a delay timer for
reachability announcements.  As previously noted, one could consider
it a replacement for *both* timers as one timer.

> But I don't think either effects interoperability

These timers greatly affect convergence.  See Craig and Abha's paper
on the topic.
http://www.research.microsoft.com/scripts/pubs/view.asp?TR_ID=MSR-TR-2000-08

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies