Re: [Lsr] Flooding across a network

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Wed, 06 May 2020 03:48 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1583A0D21 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aOapX-VGaYRb for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0355C3A0D1E for <lsr@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2020 20:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3599C61244; Wed, 6 May 2020 03:48:23 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMGkbQGot4Yr6ji5BBn+_6N4c6ARTdnXvRL0wR7e7x1VnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 23:48:22 -0400
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <61EB462E-18EC-4F1D-8EF4-0EA126D5F7F6@chopps.org>
References: <24209_1588692477_5EB185FD_24209_35_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A48E3D455@OPEXCAUBM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <MW3PR11MB46198A668B9F2532BCCC38FEC1A70@MW3PR11MB4619.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAOj+MMGkbQGot4Yr6ji5BBn+_6N4c6ARTdnXvRL0wR7e7x1VnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/acMPtqljWXVSivRjKiVBoQ8Nt2Y>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Flooding across a network
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 03:48:26 -0000

[as WG member]

I think it would be more productive if we stay focused on trying to improve flooding speed/efficiency here. How about let's get some of the proposals being mulled over actually written, and provide some data, and leave all the hand-wringing and theorizing about being too-successful for after we've shown we could be? :)

Thanks,
Chris.


> On May 5, 2020, at 8:03 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> But this proves that consistent convergence time in a domain is rather a good thing regardless if it takes 2 sec or 50 sec on all nodes. 
>