ed (but not
yet confirmed) by the peeking node, the peeking node forgets about the
gap and does not generate a duplicate retransmit request. (If the peeking
node subsequently fails to receive the lost message, later link state
messages will cause it to rediscover and confirm the gap and send another
NACK.)

4) Message gap "equality" is now determined by the start of the gap only.
This is sufficient to deal with the most common cases of message loss,
and eliminates the need for complex end of gap computations.

5) A peeking node no longer tries to determine whether it should send a
complementary NACK, since the most common cases of message loss don't
require it to be sent. Consequently, the node no longer examines the
"broadcast tag" field of a NACK message when peeking.

Signed-off-by: Allan Stephens <allan.stephens@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
ù„4ÙŸ)x