Yes/Support.
It’s one viable way to consider the flooding reduction mechanism under special topology first, and then cover other minor/unexpected scenario. For current document, after discussing with the authors offline, I think we should consider additional/supplement scenario that there are links are added between leaf nodes, by accident or in redundancy consideration. Best Regards. Aijun Wang Network R&D and Operation Support Department China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China. 发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2018年12月2日 8:55 收件人: [email protected] 主题: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for "IS-IS Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology" - draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-07 This begins a two-week WG adoption call for the subject draft. As anyone who has been following the topic knows, there are a lot of proposal in this space. However, as WG co-chair, I believe this simple IS-IS extension doesn’t really conflict with any of the other more disruptive flooding proposals. Also, it is more mature and there is some implementation momentum. Note that I’m making every attempt to be transparent and it is perfectly ok to disagree with me. Please post your comments to this list before 12:00 AM, December 16th, 2018. With respect to the more disruptive proposals, we are discussing our next steps. Thanks, Acee
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
