From: John Matus (john_matus@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 18:57:17 GMT-3
is there an aging parameter other than the send/recieve times? does the key
stay in cache for a certain amount of time?
>From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
>To: "'John Matus'" <john_matus@hotmail.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: overlapping key's
>Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:54:13 -0400
>
>John,
>
>If it were me, I would definitely use the 2nd approach.
>
>Why play around with send and receives separately. Just start the new key
>to fully kick in 1/2 hour before the old key ages out. That way you can
>verify the new key is working before the old key stops.
>
>HTH, Tim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>John
>Matus
>Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:18 PM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: overlapping key's
>
>when you are faced with a situation of needing to age out one key while
>validating a new key, let's say by 1/2 hour, or from 5 - 5:30
>
>would you set the send keys to stop sending @ 5pm and set the recieve keys
>to stop reciving @ 5:30 on the old key
>and set the new key to send @ 5:30 and recieve @ 5:30
>
>or
>
>would you set set both the send and recieve time of the old key to 5:30 and
>set both the send and recieve time of the new key to kick in @ 5:00 pm
>
>i'm guessing it's more like the last but i'm not sure if there is another
>staggering algorithm that is preferable.....
>
>TIA
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 10:12:04 GMT-3