Hi Tony,
On 05/03/2019 21:47 , [email protected] wrote:
LS topologies can have a very large number of adjacencies as well,
typically with multiple spines, so for a new spine, all of the of the
links may be unnecessary.
ok, we talked bout the balance before - adding one link at a time to
the FT may result in slow recovery, while adding all link is claimed
to be dangerous. What is the right number? I feel that the increment
value can be something that the implementation can choose or even make
configurable, so the user can decide based on the particular topology
and scale. We are not going to find the magic value I'm afraid.
I agree that optimal is probably unknowable. The question then is what
do we say in the document? How about something about rate limiting?
yes, something of that nature, with possible config option.
Let’s set the algorithmic parts aside. Do you have an objection to
supporting them in the signaling?
will get complicated, especially for OSPF/OSPFv3.
I have great confidence in you. ;-)
Also temporary flooding operation on LAN is tricky and sub-optimal. I
don't really believe it's worth the complexity.
Ok, I’m not following this. It seems like one system would request
flooding and the other nodes would comply. Where’s this tricky?
the trick is that "all" nodes would comply, where we may only need
one/subset to do...
thanks,
Peter
Tony
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
