I'll resend, working on that right now.
It's not clear to me either that we've found all bugs associated with DR
Election now. But it's durn hard
to prove a negative. What I did find though is that without the
listnode_add before the dr election,
we would never converge on the idea of who was the dr for a lan segment
if I removed the dr election on
every hello.
We've also added test cases internally to test this and I've got a very
experienced PIM-SM tester poking
at what I give him and he has indicated to me that DR election is in a
much better place now with these two
patches.
What we haven't tested is the code path that is there for when a hello
does not have a DR Priority setting.
Sending the DR Priority is a should in the RFC( 4601, 4.3.1 ):
The DR_Priority Option
SHOULD be included in every Hello message, even if no DR Priority is
explicitly configured on that interface. This is necessary because
priority-based DR election is only enabled when all neighbors on an
interface advertise that they are capable of using the DR_Priority
Option. The default priority is 1.
In that case the DR election is based upon ip address exclusively. There
is no current way to not
send the DR Priority without modifying the code base. I saw no need to
do so for this as that if
you want to elect a certain DR, you can now do so via
http://patchwork.quagga.net/patch/1270/
donald
On 6/19/15 8:16 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
The commit message should be amended to describe the change not the bug.
It's not clear if the second patch is needed to fix the bug that led to
the problem in the first patch. If so, the 2/2 patch should probably be
first.
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
