Hi Aijun, >> 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?
I think Chris answered this adequately. >>> 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? No, there is no existing mechanism. PUAM is one new mechanism. I’m suggesting another one that’s architecturally cleaner. > [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? What I would like is if there was a centralized service, such as Google Maps, that simply did the path computation for me and updated it in real time. :) Interestingly, that information isn’t flooded. It’s built with a scalable back end service and then unicast to the end user. T _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
