Hi Acee,
I'm open to the discussion of the leaderless election of the optmized
flooding algorithm.
I believe such discussion, and the election of the algorithm as such,
should be decoupled from distoptflood draft. The algorithm specified in
distoptflood draft should be independent of the algorithm election method.
thanks,
Peter
On 18/11/2024 15:40, Acee Lindem wrote:
During the IETF 121 LSR meeting, we had a very good discussion of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-distoptflood/
While the CDS flooding reduction algorithm itself was interesting, the
main area of the discussion was distributed flooding reduction
algorithm selection and its configuration and deployment.
Today, we have RFC 9667 “Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs” which
provides leader-based supporting both centralized and distributed
flooding reduction algorithm selection. With the mechanism, an area
leader is selected from among the OSPF routers in the area supporting
flooding reduction and this leader selects the flooding reduction
algorithm for the area.
The question to be answered by this consensus call is whether or not
we want to work on an additional mechanism just for distributed
flooding reduction to allow for reduced configuration, minimal blast
radius, and ease of incremental deployment.
Please send your support or opposition to this list before Tuesday,
December 3rd.
As WG Co-Chair,
Acee
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
