Tony - There are multiple assumptions implicit in your response.
You assume that the understanding of the realities of "blast radius" by all parties is accurate and correct. I believe this still requires examination i.e., that the actual "blast radius" associated with leader-based when implemented correctly is not inevitably global. You assume that the risks associated with having multiple algorithms enabled in the network (either as a transient or a permanent state) have been fully vetted. I think this deserves further scrutiny. You assume that there are real deployment needs to have multiple algorithms deployed simultaneously in a network. I believe this deserves further scrutiny. I believe we are closer to the beginning of this discussion than the end. The consensus call started by Acee was "whether or not we want to work on an additional mechanism...". I agree that the clear consensus on that is "yes" - but what we have agreed to is to discuss/work - we haven't actually done the work yet. Les From: Tony Li <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Li Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2024 6:53 AM To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; Tony Przygienda <[email protected]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]>; Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]> Subject: [Lsr] Re: Another counter-example Hi Peter, One can migrate from one algo to the other without reverting to the full flooding using the leader announced algo. Perhaps you missed the numerous operators who have requested a leaderless approach that limited the blast radius. Acee started a consensus check here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/4HZD9pxaHMCDhfUQMtb4mepBW4Q/ I have yet to see a closure of the consensus check, but IMHO, the trend is quite clear. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
