Hi Jeff,
On 7/1/19, 4:06 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 03:11:21PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> I am firmly on the side of Acee on this one – and I think more attention
needs to be paid to his initial answer: “B-F-D”.
>
> The implications of this are that we do not expect control plane to have
finer granularity than seconds – which is why routing protocol hold times are
expressed in seconds (both adjacency hold times and LSA hold times).
> Which means that even if you had the ability to display “X.mmm seconds
remaining” this would not mean that the actual reaction to the timeout would
occur within milliseconds of the timer expiration.
>
> I would also argue that operationally it does not matter if an adjacency
times out in N seconds or N.5 seconds. This is not used as a fast failure
detection mechanism.
I agree for a slightly different reason:
In general, if your protocol is concerned with second level granularity,
that's what should be presented at the management level.
Not to mention let's not make all sorts of implementations have to go put in
a float to track what's probably been storing an integer for years.
Luckily, no one is asking for floating point timers. The big mistake was
almost 20 years ago when the TE folks decided to use IEEE floating point for
bandwidth.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
