On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 16:46, Aravindhan S - CTD, Chennai. wrote:
> Hi,
> This may not be an abnormal behavior.
> Excerpt from RFC 2453: Page 28
>
> "If the new metric is the same as the old one, it is simplest to do
> nothing further (beyond re-initializing the timeout, as specified
> above); but, there is a heuristic which could be applied. Normally,
> it is senseless to replace a route if the new route has the same
> metric as the existing route; this would cause the route to bounce
> back and forth, which would generate an intolerable number of
> triggered updates. However, if the existing route is showing signs
> of timing out, it may be better to switch to an equally-good
> alternative route immediately, rather than waiting for the timeout to
> happen. Therefore, if the new metric is the same as the old one,
> examine the timeout for the existing route. If it is at least
> halfway to the expiration point, switch to the new route. This
> heuristic is optional, but highly recommended."
>
> Please correct me if i am wrong. Or am i missing something?
imho in a router's routing table cannot co-exist two identical routes
with only different nexthop, so one router cannot send such packets.
However we should be totally RFC-compliant, so i suggest to rewrite that
part to implement the timeout-check.
what do you think about that?
--
mydecay
S.P.I.N.E. Group - http://www.spine-group.org
Key Fingerprint: 667A 4E73 EA53 66AC E2AB D0CA 2908 1484 1F26 4C40
GnuPG Key: http://www.spine-group.org/keys/mydecay.asc
> Hi,
> This may not be an abnormal behavior.
> Excerpt from RFC 2453: Page 28
>
> "If the new metric is the same as the old one, it is simplest to do
> nothing further (beyond re-initializing the timeout, as specified
> above); but, there is a heuristic which could be applied. Normally,
> it is senseless to replace a route if the new route has the same
> metric as the existing route; this would cause the route to bounce
> back and forth, which would generate an intolerable number of
> triggered updates. However, if the existing route is showing signs
> of timing out, it may be better to switch to an equally-good
> alternative route immediately, rather than waiting for the timeout to
> happen. Therefore, if the new metric is the same as the old one,
> examine the timeout for the existing route. If it is at least
> halfway to the expiration point, switch to the new route. This
> heuristic is optional, but highly recommended."
>
> Please correct me if i am wrong. Or am i missing something?
imho in a router's routing table cannot co-exist two identical routes
with only different nexthop, so one router cannot send such packets.
However we should be totally RFC-compliant, so i suggest to rewrite that
part to implement the timeout-check.
what do you think about that?
--
mydecay
S.P.I.N.E. Group - http://www.spine-group.org
Key Fingerprint: 667A 4E73 EA53 66AC E2AB D0CA 2908 1484 1F26 4C40
GnuPG Key: http://www.spine-group.org/keys/mydecay.asc