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.
I think this is too restrictive.
We should not exclude algorithms that can build a flooding topology with
unidirectional links.
Regards,
Jakob.
From: Tony Li On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 10:10 PM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr
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
