Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] draft-ietf-isis-restart-01.txt

From: mike shand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:29:48 +0100

At 22:25 17/06/2002 +0000, Kent Wong wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have some questions and comments on the isis restart draft:
>
>1. On Page 6
>"....a router MAY transmit one or more normal IIHs
>(containing a restart option, but with RR and RA clear) after the
>initial RR/RA exchange, but before synchronization has been
>achieved, in order to extend the holding time of the neighbors
>adjacencies, beyond that indicated in the remaining time field of
>the neighbors IIH with the RA bit set."
>
>When a router does this, should it also extend T3 to be the new
>holding time? Otherwise, even though we extend nbr's holding time
>for the adjacency, T3 will still expire in a short time and LSP
>with OL bit set will be generated and the graceful restart will
>fail anyway.

Yes. That was the assumption. Sorry that wasn't made clear.

>2. Instead of sending normal IIH after initial RR/RA exchange,
>would it make more sense that if this is a planned restart,
>a normal IIH with a large holding time is sent before the router
>going down so that nbr will hold the adjacency until restarting
>router finishes the complete restart procedure. In that way, there
>is no need to send extra normal IIH after initial RR/RA exchange.

Yes that is possible too. My take on this is that the protocol mechanisms 
described in the spec can be used in a variety of creative ways which do 
not necessarily need to be spelled out in the draft because they do not 
require explicit co-operation. This is an example of such a mechanism.

>3. If T2 on both levels expires/cancelled, it means end of
>database resync and if T3 is still running, we should cancel
>T3 at this time. Is that correct? The draft did not say this explicitly.

Yes.

>Thanks.
>
>Kent Wong
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
>http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>_______________________________________________
>Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
>http://spider.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://spider.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 06:59:10 -0400 (EDT)

> with OL bit set will be generated and the graceful restart will

Yes, that seems logical.

> is no need to send extra normal IIH after initial RR/RA exchange.

You could do this, though there's no reason to specify it, I
don't think (?).

> T3 at this time. Is that correct? The draft did not say this explicitly.

Yes, this should be correct.

:-)

Russ

__________________________________
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone