On 30/07/2020 16:30, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hey Peter,
Not sure how smart you really want to be here but keep in mind that BGP
say option C may never hear about it all the way to the egress PE in
other domain or area ... It is almost always incongruent with IGP.
So if the BGP path is installed it will indeed be at risk to resolve via
less specific when it is still active BGP path and you too quickly
remove info about unreachability.
again, if you are smart you can use this info to your advantage, even
without putting it in the forwarding and leaving the less specific stuff
intact.
Peter
Thx
R.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 4:21 PM Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com
<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote:
On 30/07/2020 16:14, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > 2：For bgp example，when the pe node down，the bgp peer
must down
> within
> > 30 mintus，It will not get it up via cancle advertise pua.
>
> for the above it is sufficient to advertise the
unreachability for few
> seconds from each ABR independently. That would be a much
more solid
> proposal.
>
>
> Not sure about "few seconds" ... IBGP def hold time in number of
> implementations is 180 sec :) .. but few minutes will work for sure.
depends how you use it.
If you can use the unreachable info in a smart way, it's sufficient if
it is present for a very short time interval.
thanks,
Peter
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
