> Ok. I think it would be very helpful to be very clear about these things, as > there is some confusion. Our primary discussion has been about leader > election vs. leaderless.
I agree. If there are concerns about centralized algorithm (as per RFC 9667) that is a separate topic and should be discussed in a separate thread. The discussion here should be restricted to leader-based distributed mode (as per RFC 9667) vs leaderless (which clearly has to be distributed). Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Li <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Li > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 9:15 AM > To: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > Cc: Tony Przygienda <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]> > Subject: [Lsr] Re: A counter example > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > If your skepticism reaches to the centralized flooding topology algorithm > > > > It was the above. > > > Ok. I think it would be very helpful to be very clear about these things, as > there is some confusion. Our primary discussion has been about leader > election vs. leaderless. > > > > In a mixed vendor's network with a zoo of versions of operating system such > algorithm would need to be uniformly understood unless you would be > flooding per each dst node a complete flooding graph. > > > Ok. In a centralized algorithm, the result that is published is simply a > list of list > of nodes: (A, B, C, D, A), (C, E, F, G, H, B), …. While it is not impossible > to mess > up interpreting this, I would think that a bug in the centralized algorithm > itself > would be far more likely. > > T > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
