Hi Aijun, > The ABR should do the summary work based on the liveness, right?
No. ABRs advertised statically configured prefixes for the area. Anything else would cause flap. And it’s purely reachability, not liveness. There can be zero live nodes within an area and the ABR should still advertise its summary. > Pub/Sub style notification seems promising, but it will require the ABR store > the subscription state which will certainly degrade its performance. Baloney. A notification list address post-SPF is wholly outside of the performance path. > On the other hand, let the receiver decides whether to utilize such > information is distributed design and more robust? There is no much work to > be done when they receive the PUAM message. Just to judge the originator of > the prefix is valid or not. Correct, you just flood information throughout the network that most of the nodes don’t care about, burdening others with additional flooding and database scale issues, just when there are failures. Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
