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