Hi Acee, This solution is mainly used for the Edge PEs. In most cases, the performance of the edge PE is poor. We may not have so much BFD resources to do detection. When we do aggregate for remote PE’s locator route, the Edge PE will only detect remote PE’s failure on BGP neighbors’ down and route’s withdraw. So I think use negative advertisement to found remote PE’s failure is necessary.
Regards, Haibo From: Lsr [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 3:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Lsr] "Prefix Unreachable Announcement" and "IS-IS and OSPF Extension for Event Notification" Speaking as WG Chairs: The authors of “Prefix Unreachable Announcement” have requested an adoption. The crux of the draft is to signal unreachability of a prefix across OSPF or IS-IS areas when area summarization is employed and prefix is summarised. We also have “IS-IS and OSPF Extension for Event Notification” which can be used to address the same use case. The drafts take radically different approaches to the problem and the authors of both drafts do not wish to converge on the other draft’s method so it is understandable that merging the drafts really isn’t an option. Before an adoption call for either draft, I’d like to ask the WG: 1. Is this a problem that needs to be solved in the IGPs? The use case offered in both drafts is signaling unreachability of a BGP peer. Could this better solved with a different mechanism (e.g., BFD) rather than flooding this negative reachability information across the entire IGP domain? 2. Assuming we do want to take on negative advertisement in the IGP, what are the technical merits and/or detriments of the two approaches? We’ll reserve any further discussion to “WG member” comments on the two approaches. Thanks, Acee and Chris
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
