Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04.txt

Acee, > I think a distributed flooding algorithm is more robust and will converge > faster when there more than one concurrent failure in the flooding topology. No doubt. However, we do not normally attempt to protect against multiple concurrent failures. Regardless of how the flooding

Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04.txt

g Subject: Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04.txt Hi Tony, if we start with a single standardized algorithm, that is easy to implement and deploy. We can leave the door open for additional algorithms to be defined later together with the selection m

Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04.txt

ob Shakir <r...@rob.sh>; tony...@tony.li; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04.txt Les, Isn't RIFT effectively a new flooding algorithm - while not strictly designed to be used within current link

Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04.txt

algorithm and be done. > > A variant on https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6325#section-4.5.1 is one > such candidate. > > > >Les > > > > > > *From:* Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Rob Shakir > *Sent:* Friday, April 06, 2018 9:03 AM > *To:* Peter

Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04.txt

Given Les chimed in I can't resist either now ;-) Individual musings a bit having done some of the stuff in the past ;-) On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > I think this discussion has already gone much too far in the direction of > customized

Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04.txt

:03 AM To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com> Cc: lsr@ietf.org; tony...@tony.li Subject: Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04.txt Peter, How do we transition between algorithms in the approach that you suggest? Do all non-stub devices need to be upgrade

Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04.txt

I agree with Rob & Tony. Converging on single algorithm across zoo of vendors is not going to happen bearing in mind that every single change to such algorithm will require a massive 1000s nodes software upgrade each time. Note that even if IETF converges industry may not and that is a practical

Re: [Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04.txt

Hi Peter, Thank you for your comments. > while I appreciate the flexibility associated with the centralized > computation of the flooding topology, it has some drawbacks as well: > > 1. "flooding topology" must be flooded. This makes the flooding dependent on > the flooded data itself.

[Lsr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-li-dynamic-flooding-04.txt

Hi all, I’ve submitted an updated version of my draft. Several changes: - This collapses the two documents into one, so IS-IS is now included. Placeholders are there for OSPF. - I’ve expanded the discussion of failure modes. - Minor bug fixes. Your comments are solicited… Tony > Begin