Robert – We have not made nor do we require any change to customer maintenance procedures. Implementations have tools to address this. If you are not happy with those tools that is another topic entirely unrelated to pulse.
I stand by my responses below. Les From: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 9:06 AM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE Les, For all maintenance purposes there is need to drain the traffic from the router before hitting reload or powering it off. Sure services can be removed for that. But since Peter claims we need to care about networks where no BGP is used how do I indicate domain wide that I am going to bring the box down gracefully when it still is forwarding packets in flight such that ingress points can gracefully switch it to a backup paths. To me PULSE could fit that bill. But it seems you are resisting to use it in such way. So the question stands - how to do it ? Thx, R. On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 5:58 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> wrote: Robert – Regarding OL bit, normal SPF procedures are used. For destinations which transit the router that path will no longer be used. If that makes a given destination unreachable then a pulse will be generated. For prefixes advertised by the OL Router, those are still considered reachable. Implementations may have knobs to withdraw prefix advertisements when OL bit is set. If that occurs, again – normal SPF procedures are used. Regarding max-metric, I do not see that it is relevant. Operators who use max-metric as part of their maintenance procedures are not taking a router completely out of service – they are simply making it a path of last resort. If they want to take the node out of service they are going to have to shut links or disable protocol operation entirely on those links. So again I do not see that any special consideration of max-metric is needed. Les From: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net<mailto:rob...@raszuk.net>> Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 7:36 AM To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com<mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com>> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE Peter and Les, Do you plan to have a provision to suspend PULSE generation for the planned maintenance windows where service reachability was removed before PE went down ? What was the conclusion in respect to MAX AGE and OL bits ? Thx, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
