Aijun, On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 10:30 AM Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> wrote:
> Hi, Robert: > > > > So the main point here is that yes it is highly recommended to use > summaries across areas. But what's not clear (at least to me) is if we > really need to signal node liveness in IGP to accomplish the ultimate goal > of few sec connectivity restoration upon PE failure in the cases of > redundant egress connectivity. > > *[WAJ] I think the goal is same as that we invented the BFD for BGP, or > BFD for other protocol. We have discussed several rounds that why we don’t > want to reply on BFD for the previous mentioned two categories scenarios.* > You are completely missing the point. I never mentioned BFD. BFD is not needed in neither X nor Y options listed in my note. Especially as some folks apparently still believe that "BGP is slow" and > that iBGP def timers of 180 sec are even relevant to the topic. They are > clearly not. > > *[WAJ] What we are discussing is that the “BGP Peer Status Detection(BGP’s > hello timer)” is slow. For tunnel services, there is no timers at all.* > And the fundamental observation is that “BGP Peer Status Detection(BGP’s hello timer)” is absolutely irrelevant to neither X nor Y. If you and/or others do not understand this basic premise then we have an issue. And for tunnel services with no BGP there is other layer controlling the service. Tunnel all by itself is pretty useless. Kind regards, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
