As RIFT chair - I’d like to respond to Robert’ comment - the example is rather unfortunate, in RIFT disaggregation is conditional and well contained within its context, it doesn’t affect overall scalability.
Regards, Jeff > On Nov 15, 2020, at 08:44, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > > Hi Aijun, > > I would in fact only propose that the presented mechanism is narrowed down to > invalidate BGP (service) routes - in fact their next hops. > > The reason being that the moment you make the solution generic, moreover the > moment you want it to be used in RIB and data plane I am afraid you are > running into similar (even if local) deaggregation mechanism like recently > described in RIFT. That would kill all the scalability of advertising summary > routes in the first place and I bet would face lots of opposition. > > Thx, > R. > >>> I would actually trim most use cases leaving just one - to signal remote >>> service node (ex: PE) going down in the presence of summary route being >>> advertised from remote area or pop. > [WAJ] Yes, this may be the most useful use case, but the PUA mechanism can > also apply to other scenarios. We want to make it one general solution. > _______________________________________________ > 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
