Subject: Re: data issue 2: lifetimes

From: Greg Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 22:22:11 -0800

Matt Squire wrote:

> Given the potential size of the database, I would propose that we go
> with (a). Aging individual entries does not seem particularly
> attractive although it certainly would provide some neat benefits.

Agree quite strongly here :)

- Greg

---------
This message came from the IETF IPTEL Working Group Mailing List.

---

From: Matt Squire <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 14:10:34 -0500

<bigger>

2) Lifetime of routing entries.  

   There have been various requirements stated with respect to the

   period of time that a routing entry is valid.  Some alternatives 
that

   have been discussed include:

     a)Routing entries are valid indefinitely.  The protocol is

       responsible for explicitly removing/purging entries that are no 

       longer valid.

     b)Routing entries are given a lifetime at their origination.

       Unless its refreshed before the lifetime expires, the routing
entry

       is automatically deleted after a certain period of time.

     c)Routing entries can be scheduled.  Here, the entry is given both

       a start and end to its lifetime.  The times could be relative or

       absolute (requiring something like NTP). 

</bigger>

---------