Les, > Pulse functionality will need to be enabled by the user – as with any other IGP feature.
That was not my point. My point was that you blindly PULSE irrespective if this is useful for anyone if a given PE went down. That is an architectural flaw. Best, R. On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:02 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert – > > > > Pulse functionality will need to be enabled by the user – as with any > other IGP feature. > > If a given customer does not see that it is useful in their network, they > need not enable it. > > > > If they have enabled it my comment regarding partition still applies. > > > > Thanx. > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 1, 2021 9:02 AM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Tony Przygienda <[email protected]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) < > [email protected]>; Hannes Gredler <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; > Tony Li <[email protected]>; Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; > Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE > > > > Hi Les, > > > > *so one could argue that switching BGP traffic to the backup path is still > a good idea.* > > > > Well you are making a huge assumption that there is a backup path via a > given domain. > > > > In modern networks true backup is build from CE POV and happens via > another domain or via another service. Old fashioned design is stuck with > the model of single provider locking customers. That's no longer sound. > > > > In such cases signalling PULSES adds only noise and not much benefit > (other than few seconds of less traffic to be dropped after traversing the > given domain network). > > > > Best, > > R. > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
