headers
sandeep kumar | 1 Dec 2008 05:52
Picon

Regarding Interval field in State refresh capability option in Hello message in RFC 3973.

Hi All,
 
Can i know in what way the Interval field in Hello message for option State Refresh Capability is used, What impact does it have in protocol. As already a interval field is there in the State Refresh Message. (Waiting for the response.)
 
Thanks
Sandeep k.
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jeyanth Christopher | 5 Dec 2008 09:55
Favicon

keepalive timer restart - how register FSM/ UpStream JP State(S, G) might be affected

        Error! No text of specified style in document. 
Hi,
 
Can somebody help in understanding the following? I hope this is the site which would allow us to talk to the Gurs
 
From RFC 4601 section 4.2, there is a mention about the following
keepalive timer restart - how register FSM/ UpStream JP State(S,G) might be affected
 
awaiting your reply
 
/JC
 

  ________________________________  
"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error,please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus."
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stig Venaas | 10 Dec 2008 18:31
Picon
Picon

rpf-vector draft, Informational or PS?

There was a gen-art review of draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-06 by
Ben Campbell who wrote:

 > -- It is not clear to me why this is to be an informational RFC. It
 > seems to be defining protocol. If that protocol is not intended to be
 > a standard, then it would help to have an applicability statement to
 > that effect.

I think this a reasonable question. It is normal for something defining
protocol to be PS; I'm not sure why it says Informational in the draft.

I would like to have a consensus call to see what the WG thinks of this.

Please indicate by Tuesday, December 16th, whether you

- agree with advancing this as PS or
- want to keep it as informational.

Stig
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
ycai | 10 Dec 2008 19:36
Picon
Favicon

Re: rpf-vector draft, Informational or PS?

Advancing as PS.

On 12/10/08 9:31 AM, "Stig Venaas" <stig.venaas <at> uninett.no> wrote:

> There was a gen-art review of draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-06 by
> Ben Campbell who wrote:
> 
>> -- It is not clear to me why this is to be an informational RFC. It
>> seems to be defining protocol. If that protocol is not intended to be
>> a standard, then it would help to have an applicability statement to
>> that effect.
> 
> I think this a reasonable question. It is normal for something defining
> protocol to be PS; I'm not sure why it says Informational in the draft.
> 
> I would like to have a consensus call to see what the WG thinks of this.
> 
> Please indicate by Tuesday, December 16th, whether you
> 
> - agree with advancing this as PS or
> - want to keep it as informational.
> 
> Stig
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

--

-- 
Yiqun
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Stig Venaas | 11 Dec 2008 11:38
Picon
Picon

Minutes from IETF 73 wg meeting

Draft minutes from the meeting are available at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/minutes/pim.txt

Please let me know within a week if you have any corrections
to the minutes.

Thanks Marshall for taking notes,

Stig
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Marshall Eubanks | 11 Dec 2008 12:30
Picon

Re: rpf-vector draft, Informational or PS?

Advance as PS


Marshall

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:36 PM, ycai <ycai <at> cisco.com> wrote:
Advancing as PS.


On 12/10/08 9:31 AM, "Stig Venaas" <stig.venaas <at> uninett.no> wrote:

> There was a gen-art review of draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-06 by
> Ben Campbell who wrote:
>
>> -- It is not clear to me why this is to be an informational RFC. It
>> seems to be defining protocol. If that protocol is not intended to be
>> a standard, then it would help to have an applicability statement to
>> that effect.
>
> I think this a reasonable question. It is normal for something defining
> protocol to be PS; I'm not sure why it says Informational in the draft.
>
> I would like to have a consensus call to see what the WG thinks of this.
>
> Please indicate by Tuesday, December 16th, whether you
>
> - agree with advancing this as PS or
> - want to keep it as informational.
>
> Stig
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim


--
Yiqun

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
christian.jacquenet | 11 Dec 2008 14:29

Re: rpf-vector draft, Informational or PS?

Advance as PS.
 
Cheers,
 
Christian.
.


On 12/10/08 9:31 AM, "Stig Venaas" <stig.venaas <at> uninett.no> wrote:

> There was a gen-art review of draft-ietf-pim-rpf-vector-06 by
> Ben Campbell who wrote:
>
>> -- It is not clear to me why this is to be an informational RFC. It
>> seems to be defining protocol. If that protocol is not intended to be
>> a standard, then it would help to have an applicability statement to
>> that effect.
>
> I think this a reasonable question. It is normal for something defining
> protocol to be PS; I'm not sure why it says Informational in the draft.
>
> I would like to have a consensus call to see what the WG thinks of this.
>
> Please indicate by Tuesday, December 16th, whether you
>
> - agree with advancing this as PS or
> - want to keep it as informational.
>
> Stig
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim


--
Yiqun

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

*********************************
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees.
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration.
France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
********************************
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
ycai | 11 Dec 2008 19:14
Picon
Favicon

Re: Minutes from IETF 73 wg meeting

> Yiqun : I am not sure we need this.
> 
> There are 3 cases
> 
> - a link becomes available
> - a route with a better metric becomes available
> - ? [not recorded]

The third case I mentioned was that a router with the same metric to the
source, but a better tie-breaker in an ECMP scenario comes up.

On 12/11/08 2:38 AM, "Stig Venaas" <stig.venaas <at> uninett.no> wrote:

> Draft minutes from the meeting are available at
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/minutes/pim.txt
> 
> Please let me know within a week if you have any corrections
> to the minutes.
> 
> Thanks Marshall for taking notes,
> 
> Stig
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

--

-- 
Yiqun
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Stig Venaas | 16 Dec 2008 14:52
Picon
Picon

Re: Minutes from IETF 73 wg meeting

ycai wrote:
>> Yiqun : I am not sure we need this.
>>
>> There are 3 cases
>>
>> - a link becomes available
>> - a route with a better metric becomes available
>> - ? [not recorded]
> 
> The third case I mentioned was that a router with the same metric to the
> source, but a better tie-breaker in an ECMP scenario comes up.
> 

Thanks, I've made the change below then.

Please let me know by Thursday if you have further corrections.

--8<--
 <at>  <at>  -247,7 +247,8  <at>  <at> 

 - a link becomes available
 - a route with a better metric becomes available
-- ? [not recorded]
+- a router with the same metric to the source, but a better tie-breaker
+  in an ECMP scenario comes up.

 The first case is not a problem.
--8<--

Stig

> 
> 
> On 12/11/08 2:38 AM, "Stig Venaas" <stig.venaas <at> uninett.no> wrote:
> 
>> Draft minutes from the meeting are available at
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/minutes/pim.txt
>>
>> Please let me know within a week if you have any corrections
>> to the minutes.
>>
>> Thanks Marshall for taking notes,
>>
>> Stig
>> _______________________________________________
>> pim mailing list
>> pim <at> ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> 
>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mike McBride (mmcbride | 17 Dec 2008 19:23
Picon
Favicon

draft-cai-pim-mtid-00 proposed as wg doc

draft-cai-pim-mtid-00 was presented in the pim meeting in Minneapolis.
The authors requested wg adoption. 7 were in favor. 0 against. Please
vote either way on the list.

thanks,
mike
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane