if you are going to claim liveness through a protocol, you have to
send
control packets all the time from M ITRs to N ETRs.
I find this terminology somewhat non-intuitive, and wonder if it's
too late
to change it. To me, "liveness" would imply as to whether something
is live
or dead, i.e. up or down. (Such state detection can obviously be
performed on
ITR I1's behalf by I2, and the result communicated locally from I2
to I1.)
I think its only documented in the Dave/Darrel draft. But they use the
term "path liveness" so I think that is a more appropriate term.
The issue of whether packets from ITR Im can reach ETR En (which is
where you
run into the need for M*N) I would describe as "reachability". (So
if there's
a routing problem, or an access control setting, that prevents I1 from
getting to E7 even through I1 can get to E8 and I2 can get to E7,
that would
be a reachability problem on the {I1, E7} pairing.) I seem to recall
this
term being used in at least one routing protocol, although I can't
now recall
which one.
Right, Dave/Darrel referred to it as "reachable paths", "testing
reachability", "is there path liveness". Those sorts of terms.
Dino
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
