Subject: RE: Assert on outgoing interface

From: vishwas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 98 15:25:00 PST

"bill> " == Bill Fenner <[email-masked]> writes:

bill> > In message <[email-masked]> you
bill> > write:
>>> 6) I feel it is un-necessary to send an assert AGAIN by an assert
>>> winner, just to tell other routers who WON, when they allready
>>> know they are the LOOSERS. Can this sentence be eliminated from
>>> section 5.5.....?
>>  Can't do that. Others need to know who won.

bill> > I think Vishu is right.  If this router has sent an Assert
bill> > already, then it doesn't need to send it again -- it only
bill> > needs to send the "I won" Assert message if it hasn't sent an
bill> > Assert recently.

bill> > i.e.  1. A sends Assert saying [1,20] 2. B sends Assert saying
bill> > [1,15] 3. A receives B's Assert and shuts up 4. B receives A's
bill> > Assert and decides that it has won.  B sends another Assert
bill> > saying [1,15].  What is the value of the 2nd Assert message
bill> > from B?

bill> >   Bill

The spec says it SHOULD send another assert. One can choose not
to do so if one think saving that one assert message is more
important than the benefit of sending it.

 -Liming

[vishwas]

Then the 5th point to be mentioned under "Asserts received on outgoing   
interface", will be,

5)  If the assert is received on an interface which is either pruned or   
does not exist on the outgoing interface for (S,G), then it should be   
ignored and no asserts should be sent in responce to this.

THIS THREAD WILL BE CONCLUDED HERE ITSELF.

(Authors pl. confirm with me)

 -vishu

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:47:07 -0800 (PST)

>> important than the benefit of sending it.

    I recall sending an Assert by the winner allows the opportunity for
    duplicate data to be avoided by other routers in parallel that haven't
    received the data yet and haven't created state. 
 
    The Assert message received by such routers allows them to create negative
    cache state.

Dino