Hi Chris, Peter and Everyone,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak
>Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 8:22 AM
>To: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>
>Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) 
><acee=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward>
>
>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.
>

draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 supports operations on three modes 
including distributed mode and centralized one. 

Best Regards,
Huaimo

>thanks,
>Peter


>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris.
>>

_______________________________________________
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