No Les I do not understand why you are not getting my point. Network is not black or white. Some PEs may be servicing multihomed customers and some (think 5G towers) would always be servicing single home smartphones.
Why build a mechanism which does not allow clean separation of what we leak/pulse ? You mentioned use TAGs ... but that would be coarse and very static. Folks suggested to you that potential clients should register and only then get the information - but what was said on that was - "Oh we do not know how to do it in IGP". Then maybe it is time to go back to the whiteboard and do some innovations to make sure feature is useful and harmless ? Best, R. On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:18 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert – > > > > One last time…inline. > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 1, 2021 11:12 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 > > > > 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. > > *[LES:] Only if the feature is enabled.* > > *You have described a network where there is nothing useful that can be > done in reaction to the pulse (or at least the operator believes that to be > true).* > > *IN such a case do not enable the feature.* > > > > *We are providing another tool – it is in the hands of the operators as to > when to use it.* > > > > * Les* > > > > 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
