Les, > I have specifically used an example where “microloop avoidance” is not > applicable. So I did not want to use the term “microloop” but rather used > “loop” so as not to suggest that “microloop avoidance” is a potential > solution for the sub-optimal behavior. > Hope you can appreciate that point. > > It would be easy enough to include more nodes in the topology which only > support slow flooding. The end result would be the same. > I have kept the example simple in the hopes we could more easily agree that > what I describe can happen when not all nodes support faster flooding – which > is the only point I am trying to make. Whether the ratio of Fast/Slow nodes > is large or small or about the same doesn’t eliminate the possibility that > the same behavior could be seen – though it might alter the location of the > topology change which would be problematic. > > From an operator’s POV, I am pretty sure that what you really care about is > whether packets get successfully forwarded or not. I am demonstrating that it > isn’t safe to assume forwarding behavior will be optimal when not all nodes > support fast flooding.
Your point is well-made. There are certainly going to be topologies where making flooding faster would result in worse behavior. However, the point is that there are also topologies where flooding faster would improve convergence. To support those, we must have faster flooding. Please focus on that goal. Regards, Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
