Re: [pim] Use of BS_Min_Interval in BSR draft

[Rishabh Parekh <rishabh at ipinfusion.com>]

Alex,
On Monday 22 January 2007 07:14, Alexander Gall wrote:
> Throttling is not necessary in a stable network because a candidate
> BSR does not generate any BSMs as long as it receives those from the
> elected BSR (i.e. this particular event does not occur at all in this
> case).  Thrashing during BSR (re-)election is prevented by
> BS_Rand_Override, so this issue appears to be moot.
>
The BS_Rand_Override interval at a new C-BSR might not be large enough (and 
thereby contained within the 60 second BS_Period window at E-BSR) to prevent 
the C-BSR from transitioning to E-BSR from P-BSR state and sending out an 
empty BSM. In this case, the E-BSR will send out a BSM (if the new C-BSR is 
inferior) without waiting for BS_Min_Interval.

Even if throttling is not required in above case, I feel that the MUST 
statement in the spec should be modified to explicitly exclude "No Forward" 
BSMs and Unicast BSMs from BS_Min_Interval limit to prevent a 
misunderstanding as evident in earlier mail from Sumanta.

Rishabh.
      
> --
> Alex

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