Snipped, comment inline. Yours Irrespectively,
John What would seem to be better would be for something like a type 2 or DIS to be used. A, B, and C would all advertise connection to the ES, and then A would advertise a connection between the ES and each host it knows about, etc. As B receives this advertisement, it can inject this information into its local Mac table, so that if A fails the reachable destination point doesn't change, only the attachment point. <Ravi> Using a route from another PE (A here) to inject a route by other PEs (B/C) has its pitfalls. For instance withdrawals are going to be tough. Say A has died for good, and X goes away – what mechanism will invalidate this route from B? If it is local-aging at B, then B might as well use local-learning to advertise the route in the first place. <Ravi> In most practical situations, X would rehash its flow to B/C if A has died. And B/C will learn the MAC of X (if they already hadn’t due to other flows), and will publish the route again (if they already hadn’t). <Ravi> Thanks. <Ravi> - Ravi Shekhar. [JD] We briefly considered this in the spring of 2012 and decided it was a really bad idea for many reasons, including the one Ravi describes above.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
