On Saturday, August 24, 2013 6:16 PM Mark Tinka wrote: > I don't dispute that BGP as a potential IGP will scale > (look at iBGP today), but will it be quick? > That's my concern.
Well my point is it doesn't really need to be quick. With pre-programed loop-free backup path at each hop I don't really care about how fast the change in topology is propagated throughout the backbone. And with great innovation from Ahmed Bashandy, that's promised to be incorporated into SR, even the need for IGP to signal the failure of egress PE to ingress PE as fast as possible so that BGP can invoke PIC-core is rendered unnecessary. So therefore I believe there are no more reasons for IGP to be fast in topology change propagation. adam _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
