On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:37 AM, matthew green <m...@eterna.com.au> wrote: >> Oh, I see. We shouldn't drop any events of link state changes. > > i don't see any point in keeping a huge series of link changes > if they can be collapsed into an equivalent sequence. with VMs > and other user-controlled systems it's possible to flood such a > link state checking engine.
Sorry for my bad wording. I meant we shouldn't drop events _in normal cases_; the number of events should be several. If a huge number of events happen in a short period (e.g., due to hardware troubles, abnormal VMMs, etc.), we should eliminate events to protect the system. ozaki-r
