Can do. Yeah, I assumed nothing needs saying given everyone sends them on p2p
since years anyway. But can make that normative
All missed ones, I was thinking 1 sec timer but people may cry as this being
too aggressive. Of dcourse it can be configured. I see people doing different
CSNP things,
Tony –
I think you need to mention periodic CSNPs.
By base specification (ISO 10589) periodic CSNPs are NOT sent on P2P links –
though many implementations support sending them and some implementations even
default to sending them.
But given it is not base protocol behavior, if you require them
Bit tricky to describe precisely since the list of things to send is per
originator per LSP-ID or rather neighbors are stable _per originator_ but
whether a LSP is reflooded is driven by the ID as well.
But reading what you wrote it’s pretty good summary without explaining what the
set is. We
From: Antoni Przygienda
Date: Monday, August 1, 2022 at 11:20 AM
To: Acee Lindem , "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
, "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-white-lsr-distoptflood-03
1. Agree, we already talked about it amongst the authors. Oberve that
it’s strictly
1. Agree, we already talked about it amongst the authors. Oberve that it’s
strictly implementation specific behavior that does not need to be standardized
so we overspecify a it but I agree that would improve the document overall.
2. Agree as well, it’s not easy to express what is actually
Speaking as WG member:
Hi Tony,
Great improvement to the prior version of the draft – I’d now support adoption.
My two comments at the mike were:
1. Potentially add text to text to section 2.1 and 2.2 to allow for N
flooding paths t the neighbors on the TNL.
2. Suggested clarificiton
