On 26-Aug-22 20:02, Toerless Eckert wrote:
Btw.: I have no strong opinions either way, and i am not the one who put a + in front of objective for the flood-message. Aka would be curious about the reason Brian wanted to support multiple objectives in it!
Let me check my archive... unfortunately all I can tell you is that we added the multiple objectives feature in the first week of August 2016, while the GRASP design team was discussing several aspects of the M_FLOOD. I can't see any discussion of that particular change. Brian
Cheers Toerless On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 09:14:42AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:On 26-Aug-22 08:59, Michael Richardson wrote:Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> 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 Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
