Re: [Lsr] Open issues with Dynamic Flooding

[[e-mail]]

>> LS topologies can have a very large number of adjacencies as well,
>> typically with multiple spines, so for a new spine, all of the of the
>> links may be unnecessary.
> 
> ok, we talked bout the balance before - adding one link at a time to the FT may result in slow recovery, while adding all link is claimed to be dangerous. What is the right number? I feel that the increment value can be something that the implementation can choose or even make configurable, so the user can decide based on the particular topology and scale. We are not going to find the magic value I'm afraid.



I agree that optimal is probably unknowable. The question then is what do we say in the document?  How about something about rate limiting?


>> Let’s set the algorithmic parts aside.  Do you have an objection to
>> supporting them in the signaling?
> 
> will get complicated, especially for OSPF/OSPFv3.


I have great confidence in you. ;-)


> Also temporary flooding operation on LAN is tricky and sub-optimal. I don't really believe it's worth the complexity.


Ok, I’m not following this.  It seems like one system would request flooding and the other nodes would comply.  Where’s this tricky?

Tony