Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Mon Oct 27 14:27:07 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75]) by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9RLR6x9024764 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:27:06 -0700 Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9RLc3bS015581 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:38:03 -0700 Message-Id: <200810272138.m9RLc3bS015581@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: RE: neighbor vs. HELLO Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:38:03 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > Does this mean that B is a neighbor of A and A is a neighbor of B or that > you should just always respond to a Hello msg. Seems like it could be > interpreted either way? "Please note that neighbor is a bi-directional > relationship. Therefore, when node B gets a hello message from node A, and > node A is not currently node B's neighbor, node B should send a hello > message to node A." If you get a HELLO, you should always respond with a HELLO, *unless* there is another connection and you have decided that this connection should be closed. In this case, since this is an "extra" connection and you are going to close it anyway, it doesn't really matter how you close it. You don't have to send HELLO. But it's okay if you send HELLO and then close. If you'd like, you can also send HELLO and NOTIFY and then close. It doesn't really matter here. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu