Hi Zhibo, From: Lsr <[email protected]> on behalf of Huzhibo <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 12:14 PM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, Peter Psenak <[email protected]>, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Cc: lsr <[email protected]>, Aijun Wang <[email protected]>, Xiaoyaqun <[email protected]>, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt
HI acee： PUA does not advertise reachable or unreachable details, it advertise events with prefix from up to down. I don’t see the distinction here and it is not described in the latest version of the draft (posted Monday). You must be envisioning some protocol behavior that is yet to be documented. Thanks, Acee thanks Zhibo -------------------------------------------------- 胡志波 Hu Zhibo Mobile: +86-18618192287<tel:+86-18618192287> Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 发件人：Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> 收件人：Peter Psenak <[email protected]>;Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> 抄 送：Aijun Wang <[email protected]>;Xiaoyaqun <[email protected]>;Huzhibo <[email protected]>;Aijun Wang <[email protected]>;lsr <[email protected]> 时 间：2020-07-31 00:04:02 主 题：Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt So, how do we define a reachable route - is it any route subsumed by the summary LSA that we knew about in the past that becomes unreachable? When the PUA is withdrawn, how do we know whether it is because of expiration of the interval or the route becoming reachable again? This is a slippery slope. Thanks, Acee On 7/30/20, 10:34 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: 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 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
