This can and should be included in the draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution, but I doubt it has. I will add some text in my next refine (I have soon gotten some time cycle to refine draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution following Michael's early comments.
Sheng > 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) Yes, it could, once the consolidation was done. I suspect this idea overlaps with the use cases for draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution. Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
