I think this is too restrictive. We should not exclude algorithms that can build a flooding topology with unidirectional links.
Regards, Jakob. From: Tony Li <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 10:10 PM To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction 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
