RE: [RPRWG] Wait To Restore
Manav,
If one side of a span declares it down (due to flapping or any other reason)
the opposite side will learn both from the control message sent the other
way and also from the lack of keep alives. There is no interoperability
issue here.
jl
-----Original Message-----
From: Manav Bhatia [mailto:manav@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 7:54 PM
To: John Lemon; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] Wait To Restore
Hi John,
If damping a flapping link is not standardized and if it is left for the
vendors to implement it the way the like then we *can* experience a lot of
problems in interoperatibility between different vendors. This can create a
havoc in the routing protocols. Suppose link A is flapping and vendor X
implements this link flap damp feature then it may start damping it even
when it is UP (because it has already flapped many times and has crossed a
threshold). The other side knows that the link A is UP but wont understand
why it is not responding to the HELLOs he is sending!
Moreover i feel that the various timers associated with damping a flapping
link should be standardized.
As i mentioned before WTR is just not good enough for this purpose.
~Manav
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Lemon" <JLemon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Manav Bhatia'" <manav@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 9:38 PM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Wait To Restore
| Manav,
|
| There is nothing in the standard that requires or prevents this. This is
| something a station could easily do, using the existing standard. The
| standard provides the basic enabling technology which can then be built
upon
| by each implementer to provide many different implementations, each with
| their own unique values.
|
| jl
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Manav Bhatia [mailto:manav@xxxxxxxxxxx]
| Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 7:10 AM
| To: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
| Subject: [RPRWG] Wait To Restore
|
|
|
| Hi,
| Is there any proposal to damp a flapping link if it flaps beyond some
| threshold value? I am looking for exponential decay wherein if it remains
| stable till some time length then it will again be considered fit for
use.
| IMHO we must penalize a link more if it flaps severely or more often than
a
| link which flaps lesser number of times and less
| vigorously. Using the WTR we don't differentiate between the two cases
| since both of them are advertised if they remain stable for some time
| period which is specified in the WTR.
|
| What do others feel about this?
|
| Regards,
| Manav
| ----
| "When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you
| sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity."
|
| -Albert Einstein, on relativity
|