Hi Aijun, At the risk of Tony confusion…
>> Agreeing with T. Li here (i.e. BFD next-hops) and let me add that AFAIS the >> confusion here is that a presence of a /32 route is used as SSAP liveliness >> AFAIS and that's simply not what IGPs are here for if you consider their >> main job to be fastest possible convergence in network _reachability_ only >> and not signalling of service failures. > > [WAJ] The problem is arose from the summary action of IGP, why let other > protocols solve it? There is no ‘problem’ with the IGP. You seem to want liveness from the IGP. That’s not a property that it was meant to provide. We want scalability. That implies abstraction and that means that you can’t get a full link state database everywhere. If you’re willing to forgo scalability, then do so. Don’t use areas. Just have a flat routing domain. Hole punching is going to put you in exactly the same place, sooner or later. You’re sacrificing scalability and adding another mechanism to do so. Why bother? >> Alternately resolving BGP over BGP as Robert suggests (if I read that >> correctly) and use RR to scale out the SSAP nhop availability is possible I >> think architecturally without garbage-canning IGPs as "network-wide fast >> broadcast mechanism" ... I doubt it will do "couple millisecs" convergence >> ;-) but can be simpler hardware wise than trying to scale up BFD to large >> number of very fast sessions. > > > [WAJ] The operator doesn’t also want the network is filled with various queer > designs or solutions. Then why are you proposing one? [BTW, I realize that you intended no offense, that’s probably NOT the best choice of words.] There’s a reason that we’ve never gone down the path of hole punching before. And yes, it’s been discussed before, decades ago. Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
