On Thursday 27 August 2009 02:08:10 Andrew Lunn wrote:
How many of these goals can be reached without changing the packet format? I've implemented regenerating lost OGMs without changing the protocol to a degree it needs to bump the version number. Does removing the averaging of TQ from remote neighbors change the message format?
My question would be, does not changing the message format so that the version number can stay the same impose too high a penalty in terms of design restrictions?
Correct me if I'm mistaken but I thought you added the originator interval ?!
In the past we did not only increase the version number when the packet format changed. We use that number to distinguish different ways of processing routing information. A packet format modification is the most obvious change but not the only one. If I receive a packet and interprete it completely different than the neighbor giving that packet to me the chance of creating routing loops is high. Therefore any major routing protocol change might require the version field to be updated.
Regards, Marek