Re: [DNA] [Issue X] LinkID v.s. Landmark Prefix

[JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@gmail.com>]

Dear Erik

> > ok. From now on, I will use the term "flapping" only in the sense you
> > describes.
> >
> > For the more general case I presented, I will use the term 'LOS (Lack
> > of Synchronization). Is it ok?
> 
> ok, but see below.
> Also, I don't think "out of synch" can be determined in a distributed
> system, since there is always a non-zero delay. Hence if R1 sends a RA
> and R2 and R3 receives it, an observer can't tell which or R2 and R3
> updated the prefix list first (or whether they did it at exactly the
> same time).

This is intriguing. I didn't think "out of synch" in a distributed system 
point of view. Rather I naively assumed Newtonian absolute time and  
an omniscient observer. Let me think it over more. 

> > ok. I think it's also important that DNA solution cope gracefully with
> > more general case of  temporary LOS (Lack of Synchronization). If
> > DNA solution can deal with LOS, I think it can deal with flapping
> > automatically.
> 
> I don't see using the LOS term as helpful here.
> LOS captures the case when router1's list of prefixes is out of date
> with router2's two list of prefixes, even if only for a nanosecond.
> 
> What matters is the sequence of events that are observable.

I am wondering whether LOS (at least the ones which cause problems)
always entails flapping. This also let me think over more.  

Best Regards

JinHyeock