Subject: Re: Assert on outgoing interface

From: Liming Wei <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:52:58 -0800 (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

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:05:46 PST

In message <[email-masked]>you write:
>The spec says it SHOULD send another assert.

draft-ietf-pim-v2-dm-01.txt says "The assert winder sends an assert".
I didn't see any "SHOULD".

  Bill

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 08:11:04 PST

Sorry for sending multiple messages in response to one.  I just came
back from travel and haven't restarted my brain yet.

In message <[email-masked]>you write:
>One can choose not

Except it's N-1 assert messages; in a pathological case, with
100 routers on the LAN, the Assert winner could be sending 99
"I-won-the-Assert" messages.

  Bill