[99339] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question on Loosely Synchronized Router Clocks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Sep 18 13:53:29 2007
To: Bora Akyol <bora.akyol@aprius.com>
Cc: Xin Liu <smilerliu@gmail.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:27:32 PDT."
<C3154A84.2863%bora.akyol@aprius.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:51:55 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1190137915_20027P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:27:32 PDT, Bora Akyol said:
>
> It is not dependent on time. You'd like a protocol to be self sufficient if
> at all possible.
>
> Moving the vulnerability of one protocol to another is not highly desirable
> in general.
The interesting failure mode is, of course, what happens when you're not
in time sync, so the routing protocol falls over - and due to the lack of
routing table entries, you become unable to reach your timesource.
--==_Exmh_1190137915_20027P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFG8BA7cC3lWbTT17ARAiNgAJ9MKF15uEFjgZmdCeLkXF3XLa7tfgCfexN7
HKeDwAA9iqPUEaPo8uqFHX0=
=D2ID
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1190137915_20027P--
