Hi Alex,
I believe you are right in saying that the RFC 4203 defined Link Local
Identifier sub-TLV of the Link Local TLV, but did not do any IANA
registration for it.
thanks,
Peter
On 05/02/2019 20:40 , Alexander Okonnikov wrote:
Hi Acee,
Yes, RFC 8510 provides alternative mechanism, but
Hi Huaimo,
On 03/02/2019 17:58 , Huaimo Chen wrote:
Hi Acee,
I agree with you on keeping the signaling for two modes. The other
parts for the distributed solution need to be removed.
There are no "other" parts specific for the distributed solution.
draft-li-dyanmic-flooding defines:
1.
Hi Robert,
On 03/02/2019 21:37 , Robert Raszuk wrote:
I fully agree and support proceeding with draft-li-dyanmic-flooding and
to include protocol extensions in it for centralized topology
propagation as well as basic hooks like "execute dynamic protocol number
X" for distributed calculations.
Hi Peter,
Many thx for your comment.
What I had in mind here was use of multi instance (=2) over very reach
physical topologies. So when we construct flooding graph for each such
instance - even in centralized mode - the intention was to avoid flooding
to take common links (just to reduce the imp
