[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Multicast Keyserver Synchronization
>>>>> "Marcel" == Marcel Waldvogel <email@example.com> writes:
Marcel> On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 10:42:21AM -0400, Paul Koning
Marcel> <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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> 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
>> (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
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.