> Is that really a common agreement in the WG ? I have a feeling think this is > too restrictive for no valid technical reason.
Well, it’s been the requirement that has been unchallenged since we started this journey. The technical reason for this is clear: if too much flooding is hurting you and we need bi-connectivity to protect against failures, then adding more connectivity seems like it negates the benefits of the restricted topology. I should note that for many topologies and for many nodes, being just bi-connected will not be possible. In any interesting LS network, for example, where # leaves >> # spines, the spines will still have many active connections in the FT. While having leaves with 4 or 6 connections is certainly possible, it seems inadvisable. Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
