Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

> so it's party like it's 1999, seems the peer group leader election gets > rediscovered ;-) Interesting old new problems, interesting old new attack > vectors like https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/822780/ > No argument there. There are no

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:41 AM Huaimo Chen wrote: > Hi Robert, > > > > >Leader election happens automatically and procedures for that are to be > vastly similar to today's DR or DIS election. So with this in mind one may > observe that both OSPF and ISIS are pretty centralized on multiaccess >

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

> draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 allows operators to select distributed mode, centralized one or static one smoothly. Aside from static approach can you summarize in purely technical points advantages your draft proposes over draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 ? Many thx, R. On Mon, Aug 27,

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

Hi Huaimo, > After flooding reduction is deployed in an operational (ISP) network, will we > be allowed to do experiments on their network? Some may well permit it. Certainly in lab scenarios they may be very willing. It all depends on their motivation to achieve improvements. It should

Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward

Hi Huaimo, > Introducing centralized feature into IGP will break IGP's distributed nature That clearly proves that word "centralized" has been significantly overloaded here. To many indeed "centralized" means a controller (like OpenFlow or SDN) and that such device added to a network is to push