Subject: Path.Max.Retrans - inactive when reaches or exceeds?

From: David Lehmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:49:03 -0500

Sections 8.2 and 8.3 seem to contradict each other.
8.2 says to mark the destination inactive when the error
count _exceeds_ Path.Max.Retrans and 8.3 says
to do it when it _reaches_ Path.Max.Retrans.

8.2 Path Failure Detection...
   Each time the T3-rtx timer expires on any address, or when a
   HEARTBEAT sent to an idle address is not acknowledged within a RTO,
   the error counter of that destination address will be incremented.
   When the value in the error counter exceeds the protocol parameter
   'Path.Max.Retrans' of that destination address, the endpoint should
   mark the destination transport address as inactive, and a
   notification SHOULD be sent to the upper layer.

8.3 Path Heartbeat...
   The endpoint should increment the respective error counter of the
   destination transport address each time a HEARTBEAT is sent to that
   address and not acknowledged within one RTO.

   When the value of this counter reaches the protocol parameter '
   Path.Max.Retrans', the endpoint should mark the corresponding
   destination address as inactive if it is not so marked, and may also
   optionally report to the upper layer the change of reachability of
   this destination address.

Which is correct?

-- 

David Lehmann                          Ulticom, Inc.
AOL/Yahoo IM: davidULCM                1020 Briggs Road
1-856-787-2729                         Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054   USA

---

From: "Randall Stewart (cisco)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:05:59 -0600

>   this destination address.
We will need to fix this in the next I-G issuance... as far
as which is correct... I don't think it really makes that much difference.

Reaches makes more sense to me.. but I don't think it matters.. maybe
others could give their opinion..

R

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
ITD
Cisco Systems Inc.
[email-masked] 815-342-5222(cell) or 815-477-2127(office)

---

From: David Lehmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:38:25 -0500

Randall Stewart (cisco) wrote:
>> ...

So what was the final decision?

--

---

From: "Randall Stewart (cisco)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:05:50 -0600

> So what was the final decision?
I don't think we had many opinions.. but I would say
the limited consensus was for exceeds...

Speak up those that disagree :->

R

-- 
Randall R. Stewart
ITD - Transport Technologies
815-477-2127(o) or 815-342-4222(c)

---

From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:06:42 -0700

Randall,

Yes, exceeds.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
[email-masked]    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦