Hi, Tony: Aijun Wang China Telecom
> On Nov 21, 2021, at 15:17, Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> wrote: > > > 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. [WAJ] What the usage of the summary advertisement in such conditions excepts it misleads the nodes within the area it attached? > > >> 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. [WAJ] Is there any existing mechanism to accomplish your proposal among the PEs? > > >> 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. [WAJ] Within the network, the number of PEs often surpasses the number of P nodes. Even with P nodes, such information can also help them reroute/switch to other endpoints along the SRv6 tunnel backup path. I think you could imagine the signal just as the alert information that often seen on the highway. It can certainly save the driver’s time. Wouldn’t you like to know such information immediately? Or you just drive as planned until near the target to know the road is broken? > > Tony > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
