Hi Les, Sorry – but I really think you are taking this thread off topic. >
If asking a question which is outside of the box is equal to thread hijacking then sorry. But you won - subject line changed. But I really think this isn’t relevant. The use of LANs in the flooding > topology is only meaningful if we have a multi-access circuit which is used > for transit traffic. And at least some of us are leaning to allowing for > that possibility – which is not at all the same thing as saying you SHOULD > run in LAN mode even if you don’t have to. Nor is it encouraging the use of > multi-access LANs. > I guess this is the question ... is dynamic flooding a new flooding paradigm in IGPs to be used everywhere or is it only applicable to densely connected topologies ? If this is former - by all means support of real LANs is must have. If this is the latter - I doubt. In fact if this is the latter more simplification in computing flooding graph, less complexity in signalling and therefor less bugs will IMHO yield much better outcome. In such cases it may be actually a feature to limit dynamic flooding to p2p topologies only. > If you want a way to more easily enable P2P mode by default – speak to > your favorite vendor. That is a feature – not a protocol extension. > Completely disagree. To detect how many IGP peers are on the interface and to do the switchover gracefully between 2 vs N or N vs 2 protocol extension is needed. It is not a single side local hack. Thx, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
