[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Detecting inactive neighbors over demand circuit
Anu,
Assuming that the Router LSA needs to be flooded
in the near future (Not a DNA LSA), what is the harm
to having it being flooded earlier?
Assuming that a numbers of routers were
booted at the same time, to minimize sychronization
of flooding updates (assuming this is considered
a problem), flooding a LSA earlier makes some
sense to spread out the flooding.
Assuming that the initial origination of the
LSA is a active probe, the flooding to other
routers florcefully verifies that all links
are still active at this one point in time...
Assuming that a non-floodable LSA is originated,
the router LSA still needs to be flooded and
not all the links are known to be in the same
state at the same time..
Lastly, if a scan identified a checksum corrupted LSA,
this pre-flood could/would resych the LSDB at a
earlier point in time. Could, because some routers
would just go down into maintainance mode..
Mitchell Erblich
----------------
armstrong mathiayalagan wrote:
>
> Hi,
> This draft recommends (May clause) Router LSA to be flooded for Neighbor
> probing.
> With respect to the applicability of this draft to OSPFv3, I feel Link LSA
> is a good choice for using in neighbor probing than Router LSA.
> In Demand Circuit, there are more chances for having LSAs of different
> sequence number at both ends.
> If neighbor probing uses Router LSA, if the Router LSA is having higher
> sequence number than the neighbors database, then the neighbor will flood
> these LSA in all the non demand circuit interface. This can be avoided by
> using Link LSA.
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Regards,
> Anu
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm