Les,
> We have received requests from real customers who both need to summarize AND > would like better response time to loss of reachability to individual nodes. > If they could operate at the necessary scale without summarizing they would > have already – so telling customers to simply make sure they don’t use > summaries isn’t helpful. To be clear: I think the suggestion was to not summarize the endpoints that you want detailed information about. Summarizing the rest of the area is certainly sensible. This should not be hard to accomplish: simply advertise the loopbacks for the relevant systems out of another prefix and then leak them. This should give you both scalability and specific information. It also has the advantage that the scale pressure is present in the steady state, not in failure scenarios. Failing into the worst case situation is always a serious concern. Having to add heuristic mechanisms to prevent scalability failures is pretty indicative that this is not a very robust approach. If response time really is the key concern, then why are we relying on flooding? We know that that’s not rapid as it will be hop-by-hop with arbitrary delay. If response time really is the priority, then the other alternatives we’ve discussed (BGP, BFD, a pub-sub mechanism) would all seem to be preferable. Bottom line: this doesn’t seem like it should be in the IGP. Regards, Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
