Re: [Lsr] Clarification on co-existance of dynamic flooding aware and not aware nodes

[Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

On 07/03/2019 12:00 , Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My reading of draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding indicates that said
> document in number of places rather assumes that entire topology (entire
> instance) supports dynamic flooding (perhaps other then bootstrap phase).
>
> Let's observe that there can be lots of L3 TORs only dual attached to
> access routers which will not benefit at all to be part of the game.
> Moreover those TORs may be from different vendors and could support link
> state protocols without any dynamic flooding extensions.
>
> So the question is if the proposal considers a case where only part of
> the fabric in single topology, single area/level, single LSDB etc. is
> aware about dynamic flooding protocol extensions ?

sure, see section 5.1.2.

If the node does not participate in dynamic flooding, it will use 
standard flooding mechanism. This means that the flooding may be less 
optimal, but nothing would break.

If you wan to be extra smart, your algorithm can even take the node 
participation into account and compute the flooding topology with that 
in mind.

thanks,
Peter


>
> Let's also observe that In any deployment such state when some nodes are
> enabled and some not for dynamic flooding can happen during migrating
> phase or operator's errors which one would assumed must be handled
> correctly by the protocol.
>
> Many thx,
> R..
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>