Hi Aijun,
> [WAJ] Then I think it is not the subject that the LSR should discuss. There > are many modules on the routers. They may all relevant to the IGP modules. > You are trying to accomplish the work that has been done via the management > system, for example https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8639 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8639> (Subscription to YANG > Notification) I’m sorry that you’re feeling threatened. Acee has already provisionally said that the subject is on topic. That’s logical since it is a replacement for PUA/Pulse. It has nothing to do with a YANG model. > [WAJ] What was said in your “Security > Consideration”(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-lsr-liveness-01#section-6 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-lsr-liveness-01#section-6>) > is the followings: > “This document creates no new security issues. Security of transport > protocol connections are addressed by the use of conventional > transport protocol security techniques, such as TLS. IGP > advertisements are not expected to have privacy, so the advertisement > of the service is not a security issue.” > What I think is that you introduce new security issues, or one new issue > on your mentioned “long list”. And, you should configure on all the clients > and ABRs the communication key, or authenticate each other. You’re welcome to think that. You would be wrong. The rest of us run TCP applications without doing that. Strong crypto like TLS is both necessary and sufficient. > [WAJ] The key point to stress the router is that the tasks it should be > executed at the same time. You just divide the work into separate modules, I > think it is same challenge to the router. Routers are (ignoring recent developments in multi-core CPUs) completely serial. They execute processes one at a time. Yes, there is concurrency. Yes, there is stress when the workload exceeds the available CPU. The secret to survivng the stress is to prioritize tasks. The IGP is a higher priority task than notification. This is clear. Thus, this creates zero stress for the IGP itself. > The pub-sub proposal is an architecturally clean way of solving the problem, > as I understand it. It does not have the step function scale nightmare. > [WAJ] There is existing such clean way, why you invent another? And why in > IGP/LSR WG? Because there is no alternate clean way. Only ugly, ugly, ugly ways. Being discussed in LSR. You didn’t listen to me then. I don’t expect you to listen to me now. Is there a point to this? You seem unwilling to consider alternatives to your thinking and risk learning. If you don’t have anything constructive, we can just stop the conversation right here. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
