Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > (b) but it could be implemented *on top* of the current > definition of GRASP, if the floods in question were issued with a loop > count of 1 (so they would never be relayed per RFC8990), and there was > a flood consolidator - effectively just a special ASA as far as GRASP > is concerned - that sent out consolidated floods.
why couldn't the flood consolidator collect and relay things with higher loop counts, as long as it didn't do it too often? (is that called a "dam"? sluicegate? me wastes ten minutes reading about dams on wikipedia) -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
