> ok, I'm fine adding some text for your case. Thx Peter !
It is not "my use case" but ability to trigger UPA for make-before-break which I think always is rather a good thing. Cheers, R. On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 4:40 PM Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > On 23/04/2025 16:35, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > Hi Peter, > >> If the egress PE is the only BGP NH, then reacting to max-metric or >> OL-bit set would make some BGP destinations unreachable. >> >> > Well this entirely depends on how one reacts on UPA if UPA is signalling > the only one left BGP path/NH as down irrespective of the trigger. Does it > stop the service to the destination or not ... > > If there are alternate paths the best path can install new next hop. > > If there are no alternate paths I would rather keep one installed active - > for example to address the case where one ABR can still reach egress PE and > the other one generated UPA. > > So why not trigger UPA in such cases to hint him to switch to alternate >> next hops if available ? >> >> I'm not saying it can not be done. The implementation can chose to >> advertise the UPA for the summary component prefix if the such prefix >> metric in the source area/domain crosses certain value or if the prefix >> originator is overloaded. >> > But this would make it not compliant with current text in section 4 which > was the main point of my question. So why not leave the door a bit open for > it in the spec ? > > ok, I'm fine adding some text for your case. > > thanks, > Peter > > > > Thx, > R. > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
