Are you sure this is operationally a good idea ? It's cool when registrations and up notifications will not get lost. But I would not like to be the one troubleshooting a network when some registrations or up notifications packets get lost ... It sounds like a nightmare to me.
Best, R. On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 6:25 PM Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Frankly, I don't see that registrations, at least for the node liveness > use case, require using reliable transport. If the registration is lost, > the faster convergence doesn't work for that node but the existing slower > mechanism still does the job done. I want to note that I'm not proposing > replacing any of the transport options listed in the document but adding > optional unreliable transport. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 9:16 AM Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Greg, >> >> >> > thank you for your responses to my notes. I should have been more clear >> in explaining the rationale for adding the UDP transport option to the >> list. Reliability comes at a cost. If the system already has a mechanism >> that guarantees convergence a faster, lightweight though not reliable >> mechanism seems like a reasonable model. >> >> >> Ok, yes, theoretically, notifications do not strictly require reliable >> delivery and thus could be done with another mechanism. However, >> registrations MUST be done reliably. Supporting two separate simultaneous >> transports seems expensive and painful. >> >> Tony >> >>
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
