"Aijun Wang" <[email protected]> writes:
Hi, Greg: Yes. I think so. If we select the “OOB solution“ category, RFC 5883 is one existing option, and has no new connection states introduced within the network devices. The reason that we prefer to the IGP solution is that we want just to relieve from the configuration/operational overhead for these “OOB solution” in the mentioned scenarios.
And here it is again, the "configuration is too hard" reasoning ... is not valid. Configurations are built algorithmically and deployed automatically more recently from service models using databases etc. It's not a good justification for not using something. Thanks, Chris.
Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 11:06 AM To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]> Cc: lsr <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] How to forward the solutions for "Prefixes Unreachable Notification" problem Hi Aijun, I believe that under Option D you can add multihop BFD per RFC 5883. No new protols needed. Regards, Greg On Tue, Jan 25, 2022, 18:17 Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, All: As Peter’s example and Acee’s suggestions, let’s focus on the following problem to think how to solve it efficiently and reasonably: Scenario: 100 areas each with 1000 PEs (100K total PEs) with 2 ABRs per area Problem: Overlay services(BGP or Tunnel) that rely on the IGP needs to be notified immediately when the remote Peer failed, to assist such overlay service accomplish fast switchover(how to switchover is out of the discussion) Potential Solutions: There are now mainly four categories of the solutions, as described below and their brief analysis: Category A: PUA/PULSE. Utilizes the existing IGP mechanism to transport/flooding the notification message. Category B: Detail/Important Prefixes Leaks. Bypass the summary side-effect for some detailed/important prefixes by leaking/not summarize them into each area. Category C: BGP based solution: Utilize the existing BGP infrastructure to transport the notification message Category D: OOB Solution. Design some new OOB protocol to transport the notification message. Because we are in LSR WG, and people are all IGP experts. After the intense discussion, can we now focus on the Category A/B? It is very curious that LSR WG will and should produce some BGP or OOB based solution. I think they may be feasible, but should be evaluated/discussed by other WGs. Or else, I think we can’t converge to one standard solution. From the POV of the operator, we prefer to the IGP based solution. If there is no unsolvable concerns, let’s accept it. I think there is enough interests and experts to accomplish this task. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
