[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Multicast Keyserver Synchronization



>>>>> "Marcel" == Marcel Waldvogel <mwa@tik.ee.ethz.ch> writes:

 Marcel> On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 10:42:21AM -0400, Paul Koning
 Marcel> <pkoning@xedia.com> wrote:
 >> Hm, this sounds like IS-IS or OSPF or similar routing update
 >> distribution protocols.  Given that this is a long-studied area in
 >> layer 3, it's probably a good idea to examine that literature.
 >> There are plenty of pitfalls to be avoided, and at this point it
 >> is known how to do so.

 Marcel> Paul,

 Marcel> would you happen to have pointers to good literature around?

"Interconnections", Radia Perlman (Addison-Wesley, 0-201-56332-0)

The IS-IS spec (ISO 10589, also RFC 1142).

The OSPF spec (RFC 2328)

I can't find citations for the papers by Eric Rosen or for the various 
ones on routing update protocols by Radia Perlman.  You might ask her
(radia@bcn.East.Sun.COM). 

 >> (By the way, a timestamp may be better than a sequence number.)

 Marcel> I don't see the advantages of a timestamp.  The advantage of
 Marcel> a sequence number is that you immediately know about holes,
 Marcel> updates which you have missed. As long as entries are
 Marcel> superseding each other, a timestamp is just fine, but if it
 Marcel> is only additive (as with PGP), I feel that seqnos are more
 Marcel> appropriate.

Good point, but make them bigger than 32 bits so you can avoid
worrying about wrapping (which is a problem, see Rosen).  And you may
still want a timestamp, indicating when the counter was initialized,
so you can recover from loss of the counter state.

	paul