Hi, Robert:

 

There are possibilities that only one of the ABRs is detached from other nodes 
in the same area, the receivers should select other ABRs to reach the 
destination announced by PUA message. 

Such scenario is described in 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-08#section-3.2.

The corresponding solution will be updated later.                    

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 4:58 PM
To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]>
Cc: Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; Tony Li <[email protected]>; lsr 
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Is it necessary to define new PUB/SUB model to monitor the 
node live?

 

Hi Aijun,

 

" 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”.

 

Hmmmm - could you kindly elaborate a bit more what incremental SPF has anything 
to do with parsing such unreachable information ? 

 

Thx a lot,

Robert

 

 

 

On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:48 AM Aijun Wang <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Hi, Robert:

 

From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 3:53 PM
To: Aijun Wang <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Cc: Tony Li <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; Aijun Wang 
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; lsr <[email protected] 
<mailto:[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

Reply via email to