On Thu, 14 May 2015, Paul Jakma wrote:
This implies:
1. You need some mechanism or heuristic to negotiate the "more converged"
and "less converged" properties, to decide who is L and who is M (if
any at all). The mechanism may be imperfect and not always produce the
optimal answer, but such is life.
Oh, and this is to minimise convergence churn not just on M but
potentially across the wider network, and its negative effects (blackholes
and loops). However, it does bias things so that L might do more
processing.
I know why you're interested in this case, because it helps a
route-server with many peers, after the route-server restarts.
While what you're interested in is minimising the CPU churn on L. Which is
a different goal, and even opposed to the above.
The answer to improving the route-server-as-L case isn't to completely
eviscerate the usefulness of GR for "minimise-routing-convergence-churn"
case.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
The more we disagree, the more chance there is that at least one of us is right.
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
