Hi Acee, > Robert believes that this is a problem that needs to be solved but that it could be better > solved using BGP as described in draft-raszuk-idr-yet-another-complex-idr-draft-00.txt. > > Correct me if I'm wrong...
Indeed you are not correct. The draft name (if at needed to have a draft on basic BGP operation) would be: draft-raszuk-idr-simple-nh-down-signalling-00.txt Keep in mind that Option 1 and Option 2 as described does not require a single line of code change to any decent shipping BGP implementation. Please observe that the functionality discussed here as an additional optimisation to normal BGP has already been submitted to IDR in 2005 and presented in IDR WG meeting: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-raszuk-aggr-withdraw-00.txt As this is just an optimisation two conclusions surfaced at that time Conclusion 1 - "If you configure your network correctly BGP as is works just fine" Conclusion 2 - "Some of the enhancements can be done with local vendor knobs which do not require protocol extensions" Kind regards, Robert. On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 6:27 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > Speaking as WG Chair: > > I believe this discussion has gone off track and the details of the BGP > alternatives need to be discussed on the IDR list. For the purposes of the > LSR discussion, Robert believes that this is a problem that needs to be > solved but that it could be better solved using BGP as described in > draft-raszuk-idr-yet-another-complex-idr-draft-00.txt. > > Correct me if I'm wrong... > > Thanks, > Acee >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
