Hi, Robert:
From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 3:53 PM To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]> Cc: Tony Li <[email protected]>; Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Is it necessary to define new PUB/SUB model to monitor the node live? Aijun, Your email is written prove that my question the other day which remain not answered is valid. I asked is the scope of PUA/PULSE to only signal service endpoints or is this to also carry any to any liveness across all areas/levels in the link state IGP ? It seems clear that you say is the latter. Not sure if PULSE authors are of the same opinion. [WAJ] The scope of PUA can cover and aim to solve both scenarios. If every node is interested in every other node's liveness that we are redefining scope of the work here, but I may still argue that not every node in the network will have a segment endpoints terminating on every other node. [WAJ] Yes, such full mesh any-to-any connection may not happen at the same time, but the possibility of any to any segment list exists, the overall effect is that the any to any notification is needed So registration model handled outside of active link state nodes IMO still is far superior to flood and forget (via timeout) type of model. [WAJ] Invent the new truck will alleviate the burden of the station(Router). Utilize the existing flood mechanism to meet the above scenarios are the most efficient way. Incremental SPF or other mechanism can be used to parse such unreachable information on the receiver to decrease Tony’ worry for the stability of “vital truck”. Best, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
