Tony - I am not "teasing". I also don't think this is much of a secret.
I am pretty sure experienced implementers know what I am talking about. (BTW, I include you in that group. :-) ) I also am pretty sure many of our customers know what I am talking about since it is their scale requirements that have forced us to improve our implementations. What I am very concerned about is that we are focused on the wrong problem. We don't have a problem flooding a large number of LSPs on a single interface. We do have a problem flooding the same LSP redundantly on many different links in a densely meshed network. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Li <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 6:59 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > Cc: Henk Smit <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Teasing us with secrets > > > Les, > > > 1)Whether we should publicly document what smart implementers have done > is not relevant here (though I appreciate this thread has sparked interest). > If > folks want to discuss this please do so in a separate thread. > > The only point I am making is that there are implementations which have > already solved the problems you are trying to address by using TCP and have > done so w/o requiring protocol extensions. These implementations will not > benefit from your proposal. > > > > > You are the one who started this thread. You are the one who said that this > solution is not necessary because you have your own proprietary secret > solution > to the problem. > > You cannot expect anyone to take that position seriously. Other people want > the problem solved and references to secret solutions is simply teasing. > > Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
