Btw.: I have no strong opinions either way, and i am not the one who
put a + in front of objective for the flood-message. Aka would be curious
about the reason Brian wanted to support multiple objectives in it!
Cheers
Toerless
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 09:14:42AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 26-Aug-22 08:59, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> > Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> 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)
>
> Yes, it could, once the consolidation was done.
>
> I suspect this idea overlaps with the use cases for
> draft-ietf-anima-grasp-distribution.
>
> Brian
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
