RE: [802SEC] RE: Reflector messed up
Buzz,
I do not think that is the problem - most of the complaints I recived came
from third parties, i.e. SA not= DA.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 5:40 PM
To: Tony Jeffree; mjsherman@research.att.com
Cc: M.Klerer@flarion.com; pat_thaler@agilent.com; bob@airespace.com;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] RE: Reflector messed up
Hmmmmm, I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here. In almost every case,
it seems that the excessive delay occurs when the ultimate destination
address matches the source address, but others on the list tend to get their
copies in a reasonable time frame. This suggests at least the 2 following
hypotheses:
1. The list processor is recognizing DA=SA as a courtesy copy, assigning it
a lower queuing priority than the other copies being sent, hence the
variable and sometimes excessive delays.
2. The list processor is recognizing DA=SA as a possibly looping message to
some other list, and forcing it to undergo a significant but variable delay
so as to prevent a storm of looping messages.
Any other network gurus out there care to venture hypotheticals which Bill
can pass on to IEEE staff for further scrutiny ???
Thanx, Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:15 PM
To: mjsherman@research.att.com
Cc: M.Klerer@flarion.com; pat_thaler@agilent.com; bob@airespace.com;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] RE: Reflector messed up
At 23:52 09/04/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>
>Yesterday, I sent out an updated interpretation prior to Mark's e-mail
>to the reflector (see attached). Yet somehow, Mark's e-mail and much of
>the ensuing discussion came out before I received my own copy of the
>updated interpretation. This happened even though I actually sent
>Mark's e-mail to the reflector considerably after my own updated
>interpretation. Boy is this reflector messed up.
Similarly, I have just received my copy of a post I made to the .17
reflector at 9AM on the 4th of April, and I saw a response to my post 2
days ago. 6 days delay seems just a tad excessive.
Regards,
Tony