Subject: RE: question on link state routing protocols

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 10:56:44 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>

    > But how the protocol decides to distribute the information can vary
    > according to the protocol. For example, one protocol might distribute it
    > in individual per-link pieces

Per-node, actually - I don't know of any such protocol which sends per-link
messages (probably because there is no reason to do so, and good reasons
not to).

    > (thus keeping message size small, but increasing the number of
    > messages), while another protocol might decide to batch the information
    > (thus allowing message size to grow, but keeping the number of messages
    > low). 

Do you know of any link-state protocol which does this? If not, perhaps
there are good reasons not to. I can think of at least two.

	Noel

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 16:28:43 +0100

you could imagine some new protocol/algorithm which carried an accumulated
counter of the number of interfaces the predecessor hop that is forwarding
the flooded LSA had seen this LSA on - this could be used by some as yet
not quite thought-through fast incremental re-computation when you notice a
link fail...

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]>wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
>