Hi Aijun, > If the scale is equal, then I would prefer to see flooding positive > information rather than negative information. Operationally this is key: if > there is a failure and positive information doesn’t propagate, then it’s a > bug that will be found in due course and the operator can react outside of a > failure scenario. > [WAJ] What we want to do is the “Positive Summary”+” Specific Negative > Information”. This can have both the summary scale advantage and also > decrease the convergence time that based on the protocol hello timer.
I do understand that. Do you understand that I think that that’s a Really Bad Idea? > Increasing the size of the LSDB always affects performance. It slows > flooding. Some nodes may not realize that SPF is not needed. When LSP > fragments are rearranged, inferring that SPF is not necessary is non-trivial. > Impacting router and network performance is a given. > [WAJ] PUAM does not increase the overall size of the LSDB. It utilizes the > existing LSA/TLV/Sub-TLV. You’re advertising bits that would not be otherwise advertised. That increases the size of the LSDB. Utilizing existing TLVs is irrelevant. > I have no objections to Robert’s BGP propagation ideas if that’s workable. > > This is simply not the IGP’s job and the IGP is not a dump truck. > [WAJ] BGP is used within the internet, adding the false information within > its protocol should be examined more carefully. As we have mentioned several > times, the overall goals are not only for BGP usecaes, but also the > prevailing Tunnel services. Understood. BGP is also not a dump truck, but has far better scaling properties, so is less likely to have catastrophic failures due to some negative information. T
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
