Hi, Robert: You mean make every PE as the register server?
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Jan 25, 2022, at 21:21, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Aijun, > >> No, I think you misunderstanding our purpose. > > You are using this argument towards a number of people ... I recommend you > reconsider. > >> The proposed solution can fit in small network, or large network and RR can >> locate anywhere the operator want to place. We have no assumption about the >> location of RR and PEs. > > Please observe that if you really want to put RRs outside of your local area > for whatever reason (maybe you run RR as a service in the cloud) then > actually we can combine X from my additional point with Tony's proposal. It > just occurred to me like a really interesting deployment mode so let me > describe the WG. Maybe Tony can add this model to his draft in the possible > deployment section. > > - - - > > When network elements residing outside of the local area are interested in > node liveness of selected nodes in the area (for example BGP Route Reflectors > running in the cloud) they can register with node liveness servers in an area > to receive targetted notifications for interested addresses. > > Such notifications can be used to invalidate service next hops or tunnel > endpoints. Upon such action service information will be immediately > withdrawn. > > That deployment model offers full flexibility with just a handful of > additional TCP or QUIC sessions needed and very little to no extra state > injected in the network. > > - - - > > That model also addresses some concerns associated with any to any > registrations. No longer PEs need to register anything with ABRs nor ABRs > need to pass that information around. > > Best regards, > R. > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
