Hi Robert, > Very happy to see this draft.
Thanks. > First question - the draft seems to be focusing on hierarchical IGPs and is > clearly driven by liveness propagation discussion. The main problem in networking is scale. If you haven’t dealt with scale, you haven’t solved the problem. The way that we deal with scale is to install hierarchy. Thus, if you don’t have hiearchy, you don’t have a scalable network. Single level networks are simply degenerate cases of hierarchical networks and should be dealt with as such. Pick two routers. Make them L1L2. Poof, all done. > But the motivation of offloading non routing information from IGPs (and/or > BGP) is also full applicable to non hierarchical IGPs where there is no ABRs. > Do you plan to rewrite section 3 accordingly ? No, since it’s not necessary. :) If you would like to see alternate text, please feel free to propose. > Also putting liveness aside wouldn't it be feasible to also relax the > attachment to each area/level such that truly opaque information can be > exchanged even if we use as broker DROID cluster sitting only in core area > and listening to data or liveness from all clients ? I’m not sure that I parse this correctly. Yes, you’re welcome to use DROID without worrying about liveness. That’s one use case and it’s not mandatory. > The DROID discovery in the latter case could be as simple as one line cfg. > Networks could also use well known anycast address to connect network > elements to DROID cluster. Yes, but TCP/QUIC anycast is not quite as reliable as I would like. I prefer simple redundancy. :-) Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
