Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu Delivery-Date: Fri Oct 31 13:17:43 2008 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 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 m9VKHhtZ021272 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:17:43 -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 m9VKTThW001758 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:29:29 -0700 Message-Id: <200810312029.m9VKTThW001758@bourbon.usc.edu> To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu Subject: Re: Question regarding Notify Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:29:29 -0700 From: Bill Cheng Someone wrote: > I have a question. > In case of non-beacons, they should do a self restart if their neighbors > fall below minneighbor. That's not correct. Checking MinNeighbor is only required *when a node starts/restarts*. > So, in this case, if a non-beacon receives a > notify from another node, should it check the count of its neighbors > instead of sending a check message and soft restart or should it send > check anyway ? It should just flood a CHECK. So, even if MinNeighbor is 5, it is possible for a regular node to have just one active connection. -- Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu