Les, As you’ve said in person, following the LSP transmission and re-transmission timer requirements is one of the first things to go.
Yes, updating the RFC with all of the other learnings would be one way forward. Tony > On Nov 12, 2018, at 9:44 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Tony - > > AFAIK no one has suggested or is planning to update/modify a standard. > > This falls into a category of standard deviations that was initially > documented in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3719 . > If the WG feels this is important enough perhaps the best thing to do is > update that RFC. > > I would however like us to agree that the subject of this thread is > inappropriate. :-) > > Les > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tony Li <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] >> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 9:14 AM >> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> >> Cc: Henk Smit <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Teasing us with secrets >> >> >> Les, >> >>> Discussion of bypassing the ISO 10589 flooding pacing timer was done in >> public many years ago when sub-second convergence was introduced. >>> Here is one public paper: >>> >>> https://inl.info.ucl.ac.be/publications/achieving-sub-second-igp- >> convergence-.html >>> >>> There are also multiple vendor specific configuration guides which discuss >> tuning LSP pacing for fast convergence - please consult your favorite >> vendor's >> documentation links (not my place to share such links). >>> >>> No doubt others can find other public references. >> >> >> Thank you for the reference, that’s helpful. >> >> Are you aware of the standards status of this document vs ISO 10589? >> >> It seems to me that unless there’s some document on the standards track >> that the average developer might not comply with it. >> >> Tony > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
