On 26-Aug-22 20:02, Toerless Eckert wrote:
Btw.: I have no strong opinions either way, and i am not the one who
put a + in front of objective for the flood-message. Aka would be curious
about the reason Brian wanted to support multiple objectives in it!
Let me check my archive... unfortunately
This can and should be included in the draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution, but
I doubt it has. I will add some text in my next refine (I have soon gotten some
time cycle to refine draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution following Michael's
early comments.
Sheng
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
Btw.: I have no strong opinions either way, and i am not the one who
put a + in front of objective for the flood-message. Aka would be curious
about the reason Brian wanted to support multiple objectives in it!
Cheers
Toerless
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 09:14:42AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter
On 26-Aug-22 08:59, Michael Richardson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> (b) but it could be implemented *on top* of the current
> definition of GRASP, if the floods in question were issued with a loop
> count of 1 (so they would never be relayed per RFC8990), and there was
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> (b) but it could be implemented *on top* of the current
> definition of GRASP, if the floods in question were issued with a loop
> count of 1 (so they would never be relayed per RFC8990), and there was
> a flood consolidator - effectively just a special
On 26-Aug-22 03:58, Michael Richardson wrote:
Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Could as well simply be a function which buffers flood-messages over a
> period of e.g.: 60 seconds and coalesces them together, so it's
> transparent to the originators (loose coupling).
> So, now i
