Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] Mib Updates

From: Jeff Parker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 09:33:21 -0400

Chris's post reminds me that we have been over this territory in the past.  

There are implementations that perform continuous incremental SPF, and thus
do not need any timers.  Other implementations have multiple timers, as
discussed.  The last time we hashed this out, we agreed to leave SPF values
out.  

- jeff parker

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Hopps [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:11 AM
To: Krishnan, Vijay G.
Cc: Don Goodspeed ; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Mib Updates

The implementations have done it their own way because its an 
implementation issue. We should not be trying to standardize things by 
fiat using the MIB.

If someone wants to do research on why the SPF interval options should 
be standardized that should happen elsewhere (and shouldn't be IS-IS 
specific).

Chris.

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg