Hi, Robert: Aijun Wang China Telecom
> On Nov 27, 2021, at 08:26, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Aijun, > > >> [WAJ] As Peter and I state several times, we want to find the generic >> solution for different scenarios. BGP exist or not. > > Maybe you missed my point. I am not aware of any production router stack > which would not support BGP. That is irrespective of if BGP is used for > service distribution in any given network or not. > > Honestly I know deployments (hint MSDC) which do not use IGP, but I am not > aware of any network which is not using BGP. [WAJ] For your proposed BGP solutions, Peter has responded you and I agree with his opinions with the followings additional comments: [Option 1]: Can’t get the PIC effect. We should track the reachability of BGP NH. [Option 2]: Even you tell the remote PE via BGP that it’s peer is down, but the IGP is still telling him reachable. Will it puzzle the receiving node? [Option 3] BGP-LS is mainly used for transferring the topology information northbound to controller, we seldom use it to distribute topology information within the underlying network itself. This is IGP’s work. > > But I am open to evaluate other protocols to distribute requested > information. I am not stuck on BGP. As mentioned a lot of pub-sub message bus > solutions fit that bill. > >> Selective leaking requires the additional configuration which we want to >> avoid from the beginning. > > No one (well at least not me) would recommend any form of selective leaking > by hand cfg. It goes without saying that subscription to selective leaking > MUST be automated. [WAJ] If not via configuration, how to accomplish the selective reaction? > >> For reliability, they can be sent several times(operator can configure), >> doesn’t need last until the node is backup again. > > That is interesting ... first time I hear that. And what if node which went > down was removed from the network forever ? You will need to go to each ABR > and manually stop PUAs/PULSES ? [WAJ] No. After the PUA advertise period, only the normal summary address will be remained. We focus only the “Down” moment, not “Down” state. > >> [WAJ] P2MP tunnel should take different action. Only the failure endpoint >> will not be used. > > Easy to say ... Sure you can remove the adj from FIB. But for how long - that > is the question - very important when we are talking about any ephemeral form > of signalling. [WAJ] If there is no other mechanism/protocol to bring up it, it will remain down. > > Kind regards, > Robert > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
