Building on what Tony L and Peter have already stated:

R1: Significant reduction in flooding overhead.

R2: Flooding reduction should not add significant delay to the flooding time

R3: Reliability of flooding MUST be maintained

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 9:09 AM
> To: tony...@tony.li
> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>; Acee Lindem
> (acee) <acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> On 24/08/18 17:03 , tony...@tony.li wrote:
> >
> > So, going Old Skool here:
> >
> > Since everyone agrees that this is a reasonable direction, how about we
> have a real discussion on the list?
> >
> > Requirement number 1 is straightforward: a significant reduction in
> flooding overhead.
> >
> > The basis for this requirement is the understanding that in a dense
> topology, there is a great deal of redundancy due to flooding, and that it is
> this redundancy that supersaturates the control plane.
> >
> > Do we agree on this?
> 
> absolutely.
> 
> I would add that the flooding reduction should not add significant delay to
> the flooding time compared to the regular flooding case.
> 
> thanks,
> Peter
> 
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > .
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to