Subject: RE: Assert on outgoing interface

From: vishwas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 98 12:03:00 PST

Yes, it needs to be made more clear in the Assert processing section that
interfaces in prune state are not considered to be outgoing interfaces.

  Bill

[vishwas]

A new draft 01 is released, it would be nice to have another writeup   
giving the difference between the previous version and this. So, it will   
be more clear what has been updated in each section.
Can the DO THIS PLEASE. Or I dont mind doing it myself and posting on the   
list.
Let the authers confirm the comments and have it maintained some where so   
that new members joining the list may not ask similar queries. One of the   
authers have to maintain this.

Regards
vishu

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 04:57:46 PST

In message <[email-masked]>you write:
>giving the difference between the previous version and this.

I did a diff; there were several minor wording changes and a couple of
extra sentences added.

1. Change "flooding" to "broadcasting" in 4th paragraph of section 4, even
though for PIM-DM, "flooding" is the more correct term.

2. Slight wording change in the beginning of section 5.

3. Slight wording change in 2nd para of section 5.1

4. Clarify wording about Asserts in 3rd para of 5.1 (don't say "prunes")

5. Strengthen wording about not sending prunes in response to each packet
you get on a negative cache entry (1st para of 5.2.1).

6. Minor wording change when talking about filling in 0.0.0.0 as upstream
router.

7. Added rate-limiting prunes when receiving prunes on an outgoing P2P
interface.

8. Minor wording change with Assert timer.

9. A little more info about the graft packet format.

I have a slight problem with #1.  I think I have a real problem
with #7.  Pruning off redundant P2P links fits so nicely into the
job of Asserts, and kind of poorly into the job of Prunes.

  Bill

---

From: Liming Wei <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 17:37:44 -0800 (PST)

Bill, thanks for doing this. Will post diffs in future revisions.

> From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
>
> 

 See my previous message on #7.

-Liming