> On Jun 21, 2017, at 09:15, Matthieu Boutier wrote:
>
>> I still do find (1) wasteful.
>
> I really would like to feel your intuition. From my point of view:
>
> - either you'll have very few some-specific routes, in which case the
>waste is negligible (isn't it the
> I still do find (1) wasteful.
I really would like to feel your intuition. From my point of view:
- either you'll have very few some-specific routes, in which case the
waste is negligible (isn't it the case of multihomed networks ?),
- or you'll have so much some-specific routes that
I've read draft-boutier-babel-source-specific-02 and I do agree that (3)
isn't that simple to define. However I still do find (1) wasteful.
How about Proposal 5, which I define as:
By default, a vanilla wildcard request triggers a dump of all
regular routes (by regular I mean from the original
Juliusz Chroboczek writes:
> I support (3). Last time I spoke to him, Toke supported (4). I am
> opposed to (2). I can live with (1).
Well, I can see the point in retaining wildcard requests for speeding up
convergence when a new node joins a network. Don't recall expressing a
I agree with Juliusz here. I support (3), can live with (1),
and am opposed to (2) and (4). Allocating sub-TLVs for
something that can be solved without is overkill, and I think
wildcard requests are really critical to quickly bootstrap a new node.
David
> On May 31, 2017, at 07:55, Juliusz
Matthieu, could you please write up a new version of the I-D with your
encoding? You might want to speak to Gwendoline, since she needs to write
up her TOS-specific encoding.
> If we keep this behaviour and mix tos-specific routes, we will have
> to send 4 wildcard requests to have all routes.
6 matches
Mail list logo