RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-06 (fwd)

["Naidu, Venkata" <Venkata.Naidu@Marconi.com>]

Jonathan,

-> Venkata,
->   I'm sorry I missed your earlier email.
-> 
->   The HelloInterval/HelloDeadInterval timers were debated 
-> among the authors
-> and multiple models (including the IS-IS and OSPF models) 
-> were considered.
-> LMP does require that the timer settings are synchronized to avoid
-> overloading the receiver, but it is a bit more flexible than 
-> some other
-> models that require parameter synchronization. 
-> 
-> LMP allows you to bring up multiple control channels 
-> simultaneously (these
-> can be over the same interface if desired). This can be used 
-> to change the
-> timers dynamically without risking that your original 
-> adjacency is lost.
-> (once a second control channel is brought up with new 
-> parameters you can
-> bring down the first). As an additional note, LMP allows 
-> negotiation of
-> these parameters with the ConfigNack message which includes 
-> an acceptable
-> value for the parameters. One thing you could do (and it's 
-> supported in the
-> LMP-MIB) is to configure a range of values that are 
-> acceptable. If your
-> neighbor proposes anything within the range, you have agreement.

  Fair enough. Thank you.

--
Venkata.