Aijun, Hmm so you want ephemeral indication to trigger SPF and affect topology computation ?
I do not think this is a sound idea. At least PULSE folks (Peter & Les pls confirm) never assumed PULSE will trigger SPF and will be used as topology change input. Thx, R. On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:46 AM Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> wrote: > 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:* lsr-boun...@ietf.org <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Robert > Raszuk > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 30, 2022 4:58 PM > *To:* Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> > *Cc:* Aijun Wang <wang...@chinatelecom.cn>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; > lsr <lsr@ietf.org> > *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 <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> > wrote: > > Hi, Robert: > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 29, 2022 3:53 PM > *To:* Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> > *Cc:* Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; Aijun Wang <wang...@chinatelecom.cn>; > lsr <lsr@ietf.org> > *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 Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
