Subject: Re: TCP state machine doubts

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:33:28 +0100

I wonder if there is an underlying question of what the FSM is the
state of; I do get confused reading it since I believe much but not
all of it relates to the state of the relationship with a single peer,
a single speaker with whom the local system may have zero or one or
more transport connections.  But in other places, perhaps 2.1 partA
Administrative Events it seems to refer to the whole local system with
potentially multiple peer relationships which will at later times be
in different states as defined in the FSM, established, open sent,
idle etc..

Tom Petch, Network Consultant
[email-masked]
+(44) 192 575 3018
-----Original Message-----
From: Abarbanel, Benjamin <[email-masked]>
To: 'Susan Hares' <[email-masked]>
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas' <[email-masked]>; Abarbanel, Benjamin
<[email-masked]>; Kunihiro Ishiguro
<[email-masked]>; BGP mailing list <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 August 2002 16:39
Subject: RE: TCP state machine doubts

>
>Sue:
>  Just a follow up suggestion. Can we improve the wording within the
FSM
>document to mention any sensitivy to RIB synchronization points if
such
>features as Route Refresh or Gracefull Restart, etc. are introduced
in the
>spec?
>Thanks,
>Ben

---

From: Susan Hares <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:13:07 -0400

Tom:

The FSM allows both single FSM and two FSM approaches.
The document does encompass both implementation types.

Even if an implementation uses two FSMs, the whole entity
is still one box.  Does this clear up the misconceptions?

If not, could you send me a list of questions?

Sue