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

[[e-mail]]

> Well unless they know by design to always flood when peer is not dynamic flooding capable. 

That would be an extremely detailed piece of corner case coding. ;-)

> 
> Yes today this seems to be consider transient and rather an exception (example bootstraping or incremental deployment). My main point was should this be also a valid and legal deployment model ?


Yes, certainly.


> The draft is actually on one hand says the above and on the other indicates that dynamic flooding could be enabled and run only on part of the area:
> 
>    Flooding that is initiated by nodes that support Dynamic Flooding
>    will remain within the flooding topology until it reaches a legacy
>    node, which will resume legacy flooding.


I don’t see that this is contradictory.  Rather it is endorsing it.


> See TORs are one case .. but there are ideas to run dynamic protocols to the hosts too. I have heard there was even a volunteer to write ISIS-lite to be used on hosts :)


I would…. discourage that concept.


> However If you mandate that all of the members must be included in the flooding graph the leaders may get a little bit busy from time to time.


The leader will be busy regardless.  Recognizing that something is a legacy node and special-casing it is not a significant win. The cost comes in exploring the topology.  Handling two link nodes is pretty much the same, regardless of whether it’s a legacy node or not.


> Of course one option is to just split those into separate areas or levels, but keeping it at single one could be considered attractive.


Splitting it would cause massive confusion, so I agree with keeping it to a single area.

Tony