Chris and All,
On 27/08/18 14:10 , Christian Hopps wrote:
On Aug 24, 2018, at 12:29 PM, tony...@tony.li wrote:
Being distributed would be very nice. However, that implies that all nodes are
going to get to the exact same solution. Which implies that they all must
execute the same algorithm, presumably with the same inputs.
That’s all well and good, but we don’t have an algorithm to really put on the
table yet. We need experience with one. We know we want to tweak things based
on biconnectivity, performance, and degree because doing it right day one seems
unlikely. Changing algorithms is going to be VERY painful if it’s distributed.
However, if it’s centralized, it’s completely trivial.
I find this reasoning quite compelling.
I would leave the door open for both and not limit the solution to one
or the other.
As an example, draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 supports both centralized
and distributed mode of operation.
thanks,
Peter
Thanks,
Chris.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
