[Nfd-dev] Delayed PIT in-record expiration

[Susmit]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Klaus Schneider <klaus at cs.arizona.edu> wrote:
> One use case is for strategy probing: If a strategy sends out a probing
> Interest with the same name (but different nonce), it might be useful to
> record both returning Data packets, and not remove the PIT entry after the
> first Data arrives.

Yes, "straggler timer" was the key I was missing.
I now found that thread:
http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/nfd-dev/2016-November/002114.html



>
> On 31/10/17 10:17, Susmit wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Ashlesh.
>> I was stuggling to find the use for it and looks like it is not needed
>> in most cases after all.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Ashlesh Gawande (agawande)
>> <agawande at memphis.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> https://redmine.named-data.net/issues/4200
>>>
>>>
>>> Ashlesh
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Nfd-dev <nfd-dev-bounces at lists.cs.ucla.edu> on behalf of Susmit
>>> <susmit at cs.colostate.edu>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 12:08:13 PM
>>> To: <nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu>
>>> Subject: [Nfd-dev] Delayed PIT in-record expiration
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I noticed that an Interest in-record remains in the PIT a little
>>> longer after the corresponding data has been forwarded upstream.
>>>
>>> I vaguely remember some discussions about the rational for this; loop
>>> detection and not having to resend the same data.
>>> However, I am unable to find the thread/redmine issue for this. Can
>>> someone point me to it?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ====================================
>>> http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit
>>> ====================================
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nfd-dev mailing list
>>> Nfd-dev at lists.cs.ucla.edu
>>> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/nfd-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 

====================================
http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~susmit
====================================