ess that is a real world deployment case I would not consider the extension
worth the trouble.
Les
From: Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 11:17 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Robert Raszuk ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] LANs in IGPs
Well imagine I am building DMZ with
> What extension are you proposing?
If you have only two routers on LAN based on IIH multicast discovery you
are still forming an adj between them (you do that anyway as one of them
will be DIS). But for flooding reduction point of view you can treat it as
p2p link (so it must be signaled as
If you want a way to more easily enable P2P mode by default – speak to your
favorite vendor. That is a feature – not a protocol extension.
Completely disagree. To detect how many IGP peers are on the interface and to
do the switchover gracefully between 2 vs N or N vs 2 protocol extension is
Hi Robert,
> But I really think this isn’t relevant. The use of LANs in the flooding
> topology is only meaningful if we have a multi-access circuit which is used
> for transit traffic. And at least some of us are leaning to allowing for that
> possibility – which is not at all the same thing
