Subject: Re: Suppress router-side processing flag in IGMPv3

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:20:32 -0700

From:  James Huang@MITEL on 04/27/2001 02:20 PM PDT
Hi Isidor:

     My question is about the case where the SRSP flag is NOT set in the query
and the corresponding timer is smaller than LMQI.   In this case, should the
querier and other receiving routers change the timer to LMQI?  My guess is NO.
But can you confirm? If my quess is correct, I think it will be a good idea to
change sentences in the table of section 6.6.1 from "... lowered to LMQI" to
"lowered to MIN(current timer value, LMQI)".

Thanks,
-- James Huang

Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]> on 04/27/2001 01:35:19 PM

To:   James Huang/USA/Mitel@Mitel
cc:   [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
      [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

Subject:  Re: Suppress router-side processing flag in IGMPv3

[email-masked] writes:
>Hi all,
>
>     My understaning of the "suppress router-side processing flag (S-flag) is
>that it is used to synchronize timer updates between the querier and the rest
>of
>the routers in the subnet. The querier will set the S-flag in a query to 1 if
>itself will not update the corresponding timer after sending the query. When t
>he
>other router receives a query with S-flag set to 1, they will not update the
>corresponding timer either.  Otherwise, they will lower the timer to LMQI.
>
>     My question is -- when a router sends or receives a query with the S-flag
>not set and the corresponding timer is smaller than LMQI, should it set the
>timer to LMQI??

No. When SRSP is set on a query, the corresponding timer value should
not be changed.

thanks
I

---

From: Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:18:32 -0700

You are right. When the timer is lower than LMQI it is not increased
to LMQI. The receipt of the query should only have the effect of lowering
the timer if it has a higher value.

thanks
I

---

From: Christopher Thomas Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 23:11:21 -0400

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:18:32 PDT
>>"lowered to MIN(current timer value, LMQI)".

I don't like the use of "lowered to MIN(current timer value, LMQI)" though.
If current timer value is lower than LMQI it is not really being lowered
at all it is left as is.

Perhaps "set to MIN(current timer value, LMQI)"?

ctbrown