Hi Chris, Peter and Everyone, >-----Original Message----- >From: Lsr [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak >Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 8:22 AM >To: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; Tony Li <[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected]; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>; Acee Lindem (acee) ><[email protected]>; Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Lsr] LSR Flooding Reduction Drafts - Moving Forward> > >Chris and All, > >On 27/08/18 14:10 , Christian Hopps wrote: >> >> >>> On Aug 24, 2018, at 12:29 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Being distributed would be very nice. However, that implies that all nodes >>> are going to get to the exact same solution. Which implies that they all >>> must execute the same algorithm, presumably with >the same inputs. >>> >>> That’s all well and good, but we don’t have an algorithm to really put on >>> the table yet. We need experience with one. We know we want to tweak >>> things based on biconnectivity, performance, and degree because doing it >>> right day one seems unlikely. Changing algorithms is going to be VERY >>> painful if it’s distributed. >>> >>> However, if it’s centralized, it’s completely trivial. >> >> I find this reasoning quite compelling. > >I would leave the door open for both and not limit the solution to one or the >other. > >As an example, draft-li-dynamic-flooding-05 supports both centralized and >distributed mode of operation. >
draft-cc-ospf-flooding-reduction-02 supports operations on three modes including distributed mode and centralized one. Best Regards, Huaimo >thanks, >Peter >> >> Thanks, >> Chris. >> _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
