Hi, Christian: In our concerned scenarios, it is not one or small part of the prefixes that is important. Instead, the loopback addresses of all PEs(for overlay BGP/BGP VPN services), or all Ps(for SRv6 tunnel service) are all important. Extract them out of the summary addresses and advertise them into IGP directly is not the optimize solution-----This will certainly increase the IGP's pressure in normal situation, and weaken the WG' efforts to introduce several solutions for the flood reduction effects.
Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----Original Message----- From: Christian Hopps <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 2:31 PM To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]> Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; Tony Li <[email protected]>; Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]>; Hannes Gredler <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; Peter Psenak <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE > 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
