;mailto:tony...@tony.li>
Cc: lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Negotiation bit
Hi Tony,
There are two different cases in which a link is to be added to the FT
temporarily.
In one case, a negotiation is needed to be done before a link is to be added to
the F
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Negotiation bit
Hi Tony,
There are two different cases in which a link is to be added to the FT
temporarily.
In one case, a negotiation is needed to be done before a link is to be added to
the FT temporarily.
In the other case, no negotiation is needed. It is determi
address the issue. I don’t think what you propose is needed – and if it were
needed I do not think it would belong in flooding optimizations draft.
Les
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Huaimo Chen
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 8:07 AM
To: tony...@tony.li
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding
Hi Gyan,
From: Gyan Mishra
Date: Friday, May 17, 2019 at 3:31 AM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: Huaimo Chen , "lsr@ietf.org" , Tony
Li
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Negotiation bit
Les
We do have cases with adjacencies around around the 100 range and the process
overhead is much worse for
ty to your existing deployed networks.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *Lsr on behalf of Gyan Mishra <
> hayabusa...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:57 PM
> *To: *Tony Li
> *Cc: *Huaimo Chen , "lsr@ietf.org"
> *Subject: *Re: [L
Hi Tony,
There are two different cases in which a link is to be added to the FT
temporarily.
In one case, a negotiation is needed to be done before a link is to be added to
the FT temporarily.
In the other case, no negotiation is needed. It is determined that a link is
added to the FT temporari
Cc: Huaimo Chen , "lsr@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding Negotiation bit
Is this a new option that does not exist today in OSPFv3 or ISIS.
Operators have the ability to mark interfaces as passive so only router stub
LSA is generated which helps assist in full SPF calculation
Is this a new option that does not exist today in OSPFv3 or ISIS.
Operators have the ability to mark interfaces as passive so only router stub
LSA is generated which helps assist in full SPF calculations flooding.
Gyan S. Mishra
IT Network Engineering & Technology
Verizon Communications Inc. (
Hi Huaimo,
If I understand you correctly, this seems to have almost the same semantics as
the Flooding Request TLV (section 5.1.5) or the Flooding Request Bit (section
5.2.7).
If I’m not understanding you, could you please clarify the differences and why
the current mechanisms are insufficien
Hi Tony,
For the case you described below, in order to add one or a limited number of
links to the flooding topology temporarily, a new bit, called Flooding
Negotiation bit (FN bit for short), should be defined and used. In OSPF, the FN
bit is defined in Extended Options and Flag (EOF) TLV in O
10 matches
Mail list logo
