Hi, Acee: Let me state my considerations for your questions.
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Mar 9, 2021, at 08:37, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Speaking as a WG member: > > Hi Gyan, > > The first question is how do you know which prefixes within the summary range > to protect? Are these configured? Is this half-assed best-effort protection > where you protect prefixes within the range that you’ve installed recently? > Just how does this work? It is clearly not specified in the draft. [WAJ] Currently, we consider PUA is one generic notification for the failure prefixes. The ABR can detect the failure prefixes within its attached areas. There will only two kinds of nodes will react on the PUA message: One is the receiving side that run BGP session on such failure prefixes(accelerate the BGP switchover procedures), the other is the other ABRs(advertising the detail prefixes if it can reach the prefixes that notified by the receiving PUA) > > The second comment is that using the prefix-originator TLV is a terrible > choice of encoding. Note that if there is any router in the domain that > doesn’t support the extension, you’ll actually attract traffic towards the > ABR blackholing it. [WAJ] No. if such router doesn’t support the extension, it will not advertise the PUA message, nor will it act on such message. > > Further, I think your example is a bit contrived. I’d hope that an OSPF area > with “thousands” of summarized PE addresses wouldn’t be portioned by a single > failure as in figure 1 in the draft and your slides. > I also that the option of a backbone tunnel between the ABRs was removed from > the draft since it diminished the requirement for this functionality. [WAJ]Tunnel should only be used in some extreme scenarios. For example, when all ABRs can’t advertise the PUA or detail reachable prefixes. We can discuss this later. > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 at 6:57 PM > To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, Aijun Wang <[email protected]>, > draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement > <[email protected]>, lsr <[email protected]> > Subject: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-05 > > > Acee. > > Please ask the two questions you raised about the PUA draft so we can address > your concerns. > > If anyone else has any other outstanding questions or concerns we would like > to address as well and resolve. > > Once all questions and concerns are satisfied we would like to ask for WG > adoption. > > Kind Regards > > Gyan > -- > > > Gyan Mishra > Network Solutions Architect > M 301 502-1347 > 13101 Columbia Pike > Silver Spring, MD >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
