Hi Les, Thank you for commenting.
> I am not enthused about this solution. Full mesh isn’t appealing at scale. > But I recognize this as an alternative which some might find useful in some > deployments. Is it clear that the full mesh is only at the ABR level? > I also understand why and find it appropriate that you have introduced > discussion of this alternative in LSR. But ultimately – as others have > pointed out – this work does not belong in LSR. As soon as the other solutions are withdrawn, I will be happy to go elsewhere. Tho I know not where as the reliance on the IGP will cause all others to disavow this as well. :) > Finally, I object to the use of IGP Router Capability advertisements as the > vehicle for advertising the availability of the service. There are examples > today of applications which monitor the IGP LSDB in order to provide value > add – and they often execute on nodes not actively participating in IGP > routing. While running such a service on ABRs is certainly one alternative, > it is not the only one. I do not want – nor do I find it appropriate – for > Router Capability to be used as a form of DNS for such applications. Please > find another means to advertise the availability of the service. My precedent is the use Router Capability for advertising FlexAlgo definitions. This is a service being provided by the area and it seems equally relevant. Would you prefer a top level TLV? The service is inexorably tied to the IGP to determine node liveness, so at least monitoring the IGP is a necessity. You’re absolutely correct, that this need not happen directly on ABRs. Certainly another IGP listener could provide this service. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
