> The other issue is far more subtle but may merit a section in the draft. This > work is pushing the protocol in a very specific direction along the CAP > paradigm, i.e. a link-state routing protocol is roughly
This is a great reminder of the cap theorem -- thanks for bringing this into the flow of thought. Strictly speaking, making all the routers do the same thing in terms of timing isn't asking for better consistency, but rather consistency of consistency (meta consistency, anyone?). But it still largely applies here -- if you try to control the consistency of a distributed database in a strong way, you're going to give up availability or partitionability -- I suspect both. > wide set of CS problems and we are not exempt of that. We cannot move P > so pushing on the C will cause A to move to the negative. Correct -- which is why I think a set of parameters and a suggested set of settings is the most important point here, rather than trying to "solve the problem." :-) Russ _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
