Subject: Opaque LSA Timers...

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:01:40 +0200

Hi all,
i excuse me for this and previous observation, but
i considered the administrative group information very important, 
because i think they can come from network administrator or from 
any administrative tool and perhaps the administrator doesn' t want
to wait MinLSInterval seconds to send his update;
so i thought was reasonable to do a separate timer for this 
particular and important opaque field. Do you agree?

I read there was proposals in the past to reduce or ignore 
MinLSInterval, but i agree with the important presence of MinLSInterval;
i only think to a separate management.

Was this proposals (or drafts ) specific to my consideration and did they refer 
to the only Opaque administrative field?

Thanks in advance for your answers and kindness.

Giovanni
Coritel - Rome

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:59:56 -0400

> particular and important opaque field. Do you agree?

Giovanni,

I don't agree for (at least) the following reasons:

   1. This is just one variation of the "re-originate the LSA faster"
      requirement. We can't afford to have a separate solution for
      each variation.
   2. Multiple timers LSA Interval timers (which I assume you use
      to advertise if any interval is satisfied) would add undue
      complexity and overhead.
   3. While we have Not-So-Stubby Areas I don't think we want
      Not-So-Opaque LSAs. If the contents of the LSAs are truly
      opaque they should not have ramifications on the base
      flooding algorithm.

Thanks,
Acee

--
Acee