> The direction of the Flooding Path in draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-00 > is not clear. > > I think it should be uni-directional, such that path (1,2) is different to > path (2,1). If the path (1,2) should be bi-directional, then it can be encoded > as (1,2,1).
Hi Jakob, The intent was that flooding be bi-directional on all links and thus (1,2) is sufficient to describe that link. The reason for encoding things as paths is for the encoding efficiency. (1,2,3) is more efficient than (1,2) and (2,3). Regards, Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
