>> - Path information is lost. While this doesn't impact loop prevention, this >> information is operationally useful. > > +1. Reachability data optimisation is highly desirable and may one day be > necessary, but this is one of the wrong places to do it.
Again, I'm a bit baffled. Can you explain how this draft actually removes reachability optimization in the DFZ? It's carefully crafted NOT to remove any reachability information that produces a shorter path. I know the chairs have already (short sightedly, IMHO), decided not to accept this draft as a WG item, but I'd really like to understand what specific situation you can draw up where the proposed mechanism increases the stretch in any path. :-) Russ -- <>< [email protected] [email protected] _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
