Re: [pim] What is the value of 'infinity'

[John Zwiebel <jzwiebel at cisco.com>]

Aha, 'scuse me for being so dumb.
This is from the new spec...

4.9.6. AssertMessage Format

0 1 2 3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|PIM Ver| Type  | Reserved    |       Checksum                  |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|      Group Address (Encoded-Group format)                     |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|          Source Address (Encoded-Unicast format)              |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|             Metric Preference                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                         Metric                                |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



On Apr 18, 2006, at 2:21 PM, John Zwiebel wrote:

> On Apr 18, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Christopher Thomas Brown wrote:
>
> > In PIM-SM the infinity value for metric preference is 31-bit so its
> > 0x7fffffff.
>
> Only in the old spec which is replaced by the new which doesn't say.
>
> And since the old spec doesn't give a clue as to why 31 bits vs 32
> or even vs only 8, I'm looking for a concensus to make the  
> pronouncement
> "official".
>
> FWIW: I believe that in most cases its isn't going to matter.
> And in the bidir interop problem I found, there are some fairly
> obvious work-arounds.  But in the end, it would be better if
> we all agreed.
>
> When the new PIM-SM replaces 2362, it is kind of harsh to expect
> new implementations to comply with an obsolete spec.

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim