Subject: small question

From: "Indiana Jones" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:27:41 EDT

Hello,

I am new to RSVP.  I was wondering if there is a specific reason why
we may want to keep knowledge of the neighbor even after a PATH
TEAR is sent or when the established session (via the sent PATH msg)
times out.  I am not sure RFC 2205 explains this.

Once a PATH TEAR is received, I uderstand that we remove existing state
blocks for that session.  I am also assuming that we need to remove the
knowledge of a neighbor unless there are other reasons to keep this
information.  Any insights?

Thank you.

-Indiana.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:03:13 GMT

*> From [email-masked] Thu Sep 21 13:35:11 2000
  *> X-Originating-IP: [209.6.34.253]
  *> From: "Indiana Jones" <[email-masked]>
  *> To: [email-masked]
  *> Subject: small question
  *> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:27:41 EDT
  *> Mime-Version: 1.0
  *> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Sep 2000 20:27:41.0827 (UTC) FILETIME=[645A0D30:01C0240A]
  *> Sender: [email-masked]
  *> Precedence: bulk
  *> X-Lines: 22
  *> 
  *> Hello,
  *> 
  *> I am new to RSVP.  I was wondering if there is a specific reason why
  *> we may want to keep knowledge of the neighbor even after a PATH
  *> TEAR is sent or when the established session (via the sent PATH msg)
  *> times out.  I am not sure RFC 2205 explains this.
  *> 
  *> Once a PATH TEAR is received, I uderstand that we remove existing state
  *> blocks for that session.  I am also assuming that we need to remove the
  *> knowledge of a neighbor unless there are other reasons to keep this
  *> information.  Any insights?
  *> 
  *> Thank you.
  *> 
  *> -Indiana.

AFAIK, the current RSVP spec RFC 2205 says nothing about "knowledge of
a neighbor", except as parts of path and reservation state.  The ISI
implementation, at least, does not maintain any explicit neighbor
state.  A PathTear will leave no state, including no knowledge of the
neighbor.

However, I suspect that a reasonable implementation of the refresh reduction
extensions DOES require keeping an explicit neighbor table.  Is that
what you are asking about?

Bob Braden

  *> 
  *> _________________________________________________________________________
  *> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
  *> 
  *> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
  *> http://profiles.msn.com.
  *> 
  *>