[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: FW: LMP Message ID
Sorry, I meant to cc ccamp on this.
> -----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
> Retransmitted messages should have the same Message Id as
> the originally transmitted message.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Baktha Muralidharan [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > 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.