> On Jan 3, 2022, at 11:26 PM, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Christian and Tony: > > Following your idea, the network will be filled with the large amounts of > loop back addresses, will be one inextensible solution which has been > discussed previously.
I stand by what I said: "... if a prefix is important enough to merit a bunch of new protocol extensions and state, then it's important enough to simply be left out of the summarization in the first place." > And, once such loopack address failures, the nodes in other areas will also > be notified. No different than what is being proposed. > That is to say, such solution is not optimized both in normal situations and > failures situations. It is optimized. It is optimized for optimal delivery to that prefix. No unseemly protocol changes required. So yet again, either the prefix is important (it is reasonable for it to take up signaling/state) or it isnt (don't special case it). Nothing I've read in the hundreds of emails has convinced me otherwise. Thanks, Chris. [as wg member] > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > >> On Jan 4, 2022, at 05:09, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jan 3, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> And I'm saying if a prefix is important enough to merit a bunch of new >>> protocol extensions and state, then it's important enough to simply be left >>> out of the summarization in the first place. >>> >>> And then people get what they want, w/o protocol changes/upgrades, and it's >>> using time tested and hardened IGP code and designs. >> >> >> +1 >> >> T >> _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
