Tony,
On 26/01/2022 16:46, Tony Li wrote:
Peter,
The pulse solution does not suffer from the scale issues.
It shifts that "suffering" to flood the entire domain with information which is
not needed on P routers and selectively useful on the remote PEs.
yes, but how much data? Minimal. It's not an issue, no matter how many times
you keep repeating it.
You say minimal, but then you have to have a mechanism in place to limit the
amount that you flood. And as I mentioned previously, you know that some
customer will turn that up to 11 so that they get more pulses and they will end
up imploding.
we can put hard limit there. I don't see the above as a real issue. Any
realistic case will be covered by a single digit number of concurent pulses.
Meanwhile 100k registrations is not a scale issue. As a former BGP engineer,
we call that ‘Monday’. If you still don’t like it, we can go down the path
that Robert suggested and register for 0/0. We could even go half way down
that path and aggregate PE’s into their own prefix and register for just that
prefix.
I don't like the registration idea because it has serious scale
implications. I don't see a need to put all the registration burden to
the network (and operator). We can solve the problem without it.
I feel this discussion has reached a point where we keep repeating what has
been said already several times. No point continuing, unless some new data are
on the table.
Correct. Shall we agree to disagree?
we disagree between ourselves.
We need to listen to what others have to say.
Peter
Tony
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
