id Allan I ; tony...@tony.li
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jakob Heitz (jheitz) ; Peter Psenak
(ppsenak)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction
Dave -
IGP flooding on a link is by specification bidirectional.
It is OK if A arbitrarily decides not to initiate flood
:44 PM
To: David Allan I ; tony...@tony.li
Cc: lsr@ietf.org; Jakob Heitz (jheitz) ; Peter Psenak
(ppsenak)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction
Dave -
IGP flooding on a link is by specification bidirectional.
It is OK if A arbitrarily decides not to initiate flooding an LSP to
neighbor B
Hi Dave,
> The algorithm in draft-allan actually has the notion of upstream, downstream
> and both upstream and downstream FT adjacencies. However as a generalized
> form is still a WIP and has yet to demonstrate merit against any of the
> other approaches on the table, I'd not be looking to
: Thursday, April 4, 2019 6:19 AM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) ; tony...@tony.li
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction
Jakob,
On 04/04/2019 10:55 , Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote:
> How is it impossible that A may flood to B, but B does not flood to A ?
every node in the area m
and
outs are the same.
Regards,
Jakob.
-Original Message-
From: Peter Psenak
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 12:28 AM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) ; tony...@tony.li
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Path Direction
Jakob,
given that there is a single flooding topology calculated
] Flooding Path Direction
The direction of the Flooding Path in draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-00
is not clear.
I think it should be uni-directional, such that path (1,2) is different to
path (2,1). If the path (1,2) should be bi-directional, then it can be encoded
as (1,2,1).
Hi Jakob,
The intent
The direction of the Flooding Path in draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-00
is not clear.
I think it should be uni-directional, such that path (1,2) is different to
path (2,1). If the path (1,2) should be bi-directional, then it can be encoded
as (1,2,1).
Regards,
Jakob.
