Hi Gyan,
> Do you know if the dynamic flooding algorithm discussed during interim ietf > by Sarah and Toni is the same as the one implemented by Cisco on Nexus > platform or is Cisco’s Dynamic flooding a proprietary implementation? It appears not to be. Our algorithm is not limited to leaf-spine topologies and has been tested against numerous other dense and sparse topologies. > Why would we not want to adopt the best algorithm that is best for both full > mesh and non full mesh leaf spine topology algorithm that works for all > physical topologies and adopt that draft. Proving that an algorithm is ‘optimal’ is going to be very difficult, both from a theoretical and market standpoint. As is frequently the case with IETF, we are proposing many ideas and trying to sort through them. > Unless a one size fits all won’t work I would like to understand why one best > solution draft we come up with for an FT algorithm for all possible physical > topologies cannot be picked for WG adoption. > > Why would we want to adopt multiple flooding algorithms? Adoption does not imply that it will be standardized. It merely means that it’s part of the working group’s effort. It is up to the WG and the market to decide which algorithms we should pursue. Some may be enhanced, some may be revised, and some may be discarded. We can also adopt all of them and let the market sort it out. That’s probably not the optimal approach from a technological perspective, but making real decisions in the modern IETF is very hard. Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
