On 04/03/2017 10:07, Charlie Perkins wrote:
> Hello Brian,
>
> I probably should have said more. I just meant that such nodes ought to
> be allowed to have some network interfaces that do not participate in
> GRASP. Please excuse the unclear brevity of my remark.
No problem. This was a gap in the document as a whole. Easy to fix,
fortunately.
Thanks
Brian
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
>
> On 3/1/2017 5:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi Charlie,
>>
>> While reviewing your comments, I came upon one that I don't understand:
>>
>>> 3.5.6.1. Flooding
>>> ...
>>> A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a
>>> router) MUST support synchronization flooding on all interfaces. If
>>> it receives a multicast Flood Synchronization message on a given
>>> interface, it MUST relay it by re-issuing a Flood Synchronization
>>> message on its other interfaces. The relayed message MUST have the
>>> same Session ID as the incoming message and MUST be tagged with the
>>> IP address of its original initiator.
>>>
>>> CEP: I am pretty sure this is a mistake.
>> Why, please? Running code says it works fine.
>>
>> Regards
>> Brian
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
