Since stuff seems to develop its own dynamics obviously I will start another thread for official adoption by WG for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection-01 in this thread as well.
Further comments below On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:43 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... > > In IS-IS Flood Reflection ( > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection-01), > abstraction is achieved by mechanisms similar to ours, but transit service > is achieved by tunneling transit traffic. That’s not necessary in our > propsal. In Flood Reduction, the also is coupled to the flooding > reduction, whereas in our proposal, the two are independent, tho they do > share the Area Leader mechanism. > > This is technically incorrect. Flood reflection works fine without any tunnels as the draft explains. Implemented and working. -- tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
