Hi Tony,
> You already have a per-interface flooding ‘queue' through the > implementation of the SRM bit in the LSDB, which must be managed on a > per-interface basis. > Today from what I see operators (if they even change the default) normally apply same timer value on all interfaces. If the timer is static what would be the incentive for any implementation not to group interfaces with identical transmit delay ? - - - While this thread is very interesting I must observe that from my experience the issue is usually on the receiver. If LSR would publish a one page draft/rfc mandating that links state packets MUST or SHOULD be recognized and separated from any other control plane traffic at the ingress interface level (on their way to local RE/RP) we likely wouldn't be having such debate. Slowing senders just due to bad implementation of the receiving router is IMHO a little suboptimal (not to say wrong) thing to do. Kind regards, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
