Hi Tony,
On 19/11/2021 17:55, Tony Li wrote:
Hi Peter,
yes, but it's not specific to flat areas. Even in multi-area
deployments the host routing is mandated by MPLS. In these multi-area
deployments the host routes are sent everywhere, updates are triggered
regardless of the failure type. IGPs are effectively providing
liveness service between PEs in any MPLS network.
Please re-read what you just wrote. The fact that someone decided to
leak host routes is NOT something that the IGP was designed to do.
Leaking negative updates is also wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
host routes are just routes, like any other routes, for which IGP
provide reachability. What's the length of the mask does not really
matter. The fact that they are used for liveness by some application is
also transparent to IGP.
The fact that it is effectively providing liveness is wholly irrelevant.
It’s still the wrong thing to do.
well, then I guess we just agree to disagree.
thanks,
Peter
If IGPs can provide full liveness service between PEs today, why doing
'optimized negative liveness service' would be architecturally wrong?
IGPs could also deliver web pages. Capability doesn’t imply that it’s
architecturally appropriate. The IGP is supposed to provide reachability
and path computation at local scale and with stability. That’s it. One
might well argue that we’re not doing that very well yet. Maybe we
should stick to our knitting.
T
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
