Speaking as WG Co-Chair:
There has been a lot of discussion and I believe the WG consensus is that
we can work on "IS-IS leaderless flooding algorithm selection" as long as it is
decoupled from the algorithm document and starts as an individual contributor
document.
While there has already been a lot of discussion on whether the benefits
of leaderless operation justify mechanisms beyond RFC 9667, this should be
discussed further in the context of the new draft.
Hopefully, this time around I'll contribute more to the discussion (as a
WG member).
Thanks,
Acee
> On Dec 17, 2024, at 2:38 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> 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,
> Ace
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
