Yes, that is more accurate, and addresses one of Robert’s comments on my
message.
Ron
From: Rafal Jan Szarecki <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 7:32 PM
To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Natrajan Venkataraman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [GROW] Review request for
draft-szarecki-grow-abstract-nh-scaleout-peering-00
Ron, Robert,
“Reduction the number of routes advertised to the RR”
I would say “Reduction the number of routes advertised between RR of different
sites, while maintaining ECMP and reducing traffic churn”
--
Rafal Szarecki
From: Ron Bonica <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, March 8, 2019 at 1:59 PM
To: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Rafal Szarecki
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Natrajan Venkataraman
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: [GROW] Review request for
draft-szarecki-grow-abstract-nh-scaleout-peering-00
Can we summarize this thread by saying that abstract-nh has the following
goals (listed in order of importance) :
1. Rapid deactivation of all routes that resolve through an ANH when the ANH
is withdrawn
b. Reduction in churn when one or more (but not all) of the BGP sessions
that map to an ANH terminates
c. Reduction the number of routes advertised to the RR
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
