Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (b) but it could be implemented *on top* of the current
> definition of GRASP, if the floods in question were issued with a loop
> count of 1 (so they would never be relayed per RFC8990), and there was
> a flood consolidator - effectively just a special ASA as far as GRASP
> is concerned - that sent out consolidated floods.
why couldn't the flood consolidator collect and relay things with higher loop
counts, as long as it didn't do it too often?
(is that called a "dam"? sluicegate? me wastes ten minutes reading about dams
on wikipedia)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
