Hi, Acee and All:
As expressed also by Tony and Les, I think we should focus more on the practicability of such leaderless algorithm----that is, can it achieve the global optimization without the global viewpoint, and apply to arbitrary network? I have expressed the similar opinion at [Lsr] Re: Comments on draft-ietf-lsr-distoptflood-07 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/AbgMHgeW09MtlQcWd5Shr8VFN_Y/> (November 5, 2024) It’s relation to RFC 9667 is one nuance point. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Acee Lindem 发送时间: 2024年11月18日 22:40 收件人: lsr <[email protected]> 主题: [Lsr] Consensus Call on LSR WG work on "Leaderless Flooding Algorithm for Distributed Flood Reduction to allow reduced configuration, minimal blast radius, and ease of incremental deployment" 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]
