On 7/30/20, 12:37 PM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak" <lsr-boun...@ietf.org on 
behalf of ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

    On 30/07/2020 18:03, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
    > 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PUA is withdrawn, how do we know whether it is because of expiration of the 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.

    I'm not suggesting the unreachable stuff to affect forwarding in any way.

That would be better. Also, as I stated offline, it would also be better to use 
encodings that would be ignored by routers that don't support the extension. I 
tried to dissuade the authors of PUA not to overload the prefix-originator LSA 
but was unsuccessful. 

Thanks,
Acee

    thanks,
    Peter


    > Thanks,
    > Acee
    > 
    > On 7/30/20, 10:34 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Peter Psenak" 
<lsr-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> 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 <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
    > 
    > 
    > 

    _______________________________________________
    Lsr mailing list
    Lsr@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to