Hi, Robert:
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Jan 20, 2022, at 17:20, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Aijun, > > > You are proposing to use the Out of Band channel to solve the IGP problem. > > I am not sure if you noticed but Tony's proposal is an IGP extension not out > of band channel. [WAJ] The exact description should be “It proposes to use IGP establishing the out of band channel to deliver the PUB/SUB information” > > > all the registered clients will also receive the massive notification > > information unless you do some filter action on the ABRs. > > Did you have a chance to read the draft yet ? Hint: the registration is all > about filtering. [WAJ] It depends on the amount of registration prefixes. > > Cheers, > R. > > >> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:42 AM Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: >> HI, Tony: >> >> >> >> You are proposing to use the Out of Band channel to solve the IGP problem. >> There are already existing such channel, why we bother IGP to establish new >> one? >> >> And, don’t’ you think you open the gate for DDoS attack of the ABR, or all >> of the ABRs within the network? You need to consider various methods to >> mitigate it. >> >> And for the massive failures scenario, as that you argued for other proposed >> solutions, all the registered clients will also receive the massive >> notification information unless you do some filter action on the ABRs. >> >> Then what the advantages that your proposal when compared to the PUA/PULSE >> solution? >> >> >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> >> Aijun Wang >> >> China Telecom >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Tony Li >> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 12:19 AM >> To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]> >> Cc: lsr <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-li-lsr-liveness-00.txt >> >> >> >> Hi Aijun, >> >> >> >> >> >> If we use pub/sub mechanism, why don’t we accomplish it via the management >> system, or controller? >> >> No IGP extension needed then. >> >> >> >> >> >> As I recall, you are the one who posed the original problem. If a >> centralized solution works for you, then that’s certainly fine by me. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Also no pressure for the ABR to keep the RDB(Registration Database) and the >> TCP/QUIC server connections >> >> >> >> >> >> I’m sorry, I don’t undertsand you. Is that a question? >> >> >> >> >> >> Tony >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lsr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
