>It seems easier to just require that the DR's LSA include a link to >the router itself (router i in my example), or to the other non-DR >router j (which is what I used in my draft), before router i includes >a link to j in its router-LSA. I prefer the latter because then >router i advertises a link to j only if router i is Full with the DR >and the DR is Full with router j. Thus, by transitivity router i is >equivalent to being Full with router j (i.e., router i is as >up-to-date as router j).
Hi Richard, We agree with you. Originally we thought about this approach but we later went for other approach. Now we think that this approach is more robust to make sure that router i and router j have synchronized database. We prefer the latter option, too. Thanks, Lili _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
