FW: FW: LMP Message ID

["Jonathan Lang" <Jonathan.Lang@RinconNetworks.com>]

Sorry, I meant to cc ccamp on this.

-Jonathan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:Jonathan.Lang@RinconNetworks.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 1:02 PM
> To: 'Baktha Muralidharan'
> Subject: RE: FW: LMP Message ID
> 
> 
> Baktha,
>   Retransmitted messages should have the same Message Id as 
> the originally transmitted message.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Baktha Muralidharan [mailto:muralidb@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:03 AM
> > To: Manoj Agiwal
> > Cc: 'Ccamp (E-mail); 'Jonathan.Lang@RinconNetworks.com'
> > Subject: Re: FW: LMP Message ID
> > 
> > 
> > At 12:37 AM 5/13/2003 -0500, Manoj Agiwal wrote:
> > >Hi ,
> > >       Lmp drafts tells that Message ID should be monotonically
> > >increasing .
> > >
> > >       Section 7 also tells that "Unacknowledge messages sent with
> > >Message_id object should be retransmitted until the message is
> > >       acknowledged or until retry limit is reached."
> > >
> > >       Do we have to sent all retransmitted messages with the same
> > >Message Id as sent previously or it should be in monotonically
> > >       increasing order.
> > >
> > >Regards ,
> > >Manoj
> > 
> > Hi Manoj,
> > 
> > An unacknowledged message could have been lost; i.e. might
> > not have reached the neighbor. So, the neighbor has no way of 
> > determining if a message is a re-transmit and will fail [and 
> > nack] a message with out-of-order message-id.
> > 
> > So, re-transmit attempts should increase message id.
> > 
> > /Baktha Muralidharan
> >   Cisco Systems.
> > 
>