Jeff,
Please notice that WAN is not an IX.
While you can have full mesh of BFD sessions among all IXP participants
each bombarding each over over TB fabric every 100 ms or so to map the same
over global WAN is a different game. If nothing else RTT between IXP
participants in healthy IX is around
Hi Zhibo,
> However, if there is a summary or default route in the area, FIB Miss
cannot be triggered.
If PUA is a /dev/null route this is not a FIB miss. It's a FIB hit.
Thx,
R.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 3:36 AM Huzhibo wrote:
> Hi Tony:
>
>
>
> In fact, this protection use case protects the
Hi, Acee:
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 12:39 PM
To: Aijun Wang
Cc: 'lsr'
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-06.txt
From: Aijun Wang mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> >
Date: Tuesday, November 17,
From: Aijun Wang
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 9:27 PM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: 'lsr'
Subject: RE: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-06.txt
Hi, Acee:
-Original Message-
From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
(acee)
We have been discussing for quite some time and in different wg's (there’s IX
with RS use case) BFD verification based on next-hop extraction, Robert - you
should know. (also built a well working prototype in previous life).
Very simple logic:
Upon route import (BGP update received and
Hi Tony,
Thanks for your question. Please see in line [Yali].
Please let me know your opinions.
Best,
Yali
-Original Message-
From: Tony Li [mailto:tony1ath...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 1:41 AM
To: wangyali
Cc: lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Discussion on
Hi Tony:
In fact, this protection use case protects the SRv6 mid-point.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection/.
When the SRv6 mid-point fails, the PLR node can perform the next SID operation,
which is triggered by FIB miss. However, if there is a summary or
Hi, Acee:
-Original Message-
From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
(acee)
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 2:47 AM
To: Aijun Wang
Cc: 'lsr'
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for
draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-06.txt
Speaking as WG member
Thanks Robert!
I will work on spelling out the scenario in updated LSR presentation.
Thanks
Gyan
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 5:31 PM Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Yes that is the case where I see some potential use case.
>
> Especially considering also https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5283 - which
> by
Yes that is the case where I see some potential use case.
Especially considering also https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5283 - which by
many network operators is very desired, but not configured due to "slow BGP
convergence" - pls let's not go there :)
But again if someone knows how to configure
Robert
I am recalling now the BGP use case you mentioned.
If the next hop is being summarized between areas which it would be, the
next hop failure component prefix is now hidden in the summary and now you
have to wait for BGP timer to pop and route withdrawal.
So for this failure scenario one
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:43 AM Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Gyan,
>
> Gyan>. We could use Aijun’s passive interface new top level TLV to
>> link the next hop rewrite loopback to the PE-CE links all being set to
>> passive. So if any PE-CE link goes down a PUA is sent and the next hop
>>
Agreed.
Robert
Can you explain the BGP scenario you had in mind that you have mentioned a
number of times that you think this PUA feature would pertain?
I will respond to your other email separately. I was trying to guess as
to the BGP next hop use case you were referring to but apparently
Speaking as WG member and longtime steward of the IGPs:
Hi Aijun,
My opinion is that we should not overload the base IGP topology advertisements
with everyone's favorite obscure use case. Hence, I think it would be a big
mistake to add this stub link TLV to the base LSAs.
Rather, exactly
> Q1: are you using this information to determine the routing to the network?
> On one hand, such advertisement does not effect on the normal SPF computation
> and may be useful for traffic engineering. For example, for IOAM service, if
> the HbH Processing Action of Node/Link is assigned to
Hi Gyan,
Gyan>. We could use Aijun’s passive interface new top level TLV to
> link the next hop rewrite loopback to the PE-CE links all being set to
> passive. So if any PE-CE link goes down a PUA is sent and the next hop
> converges PIC core PE-CE link which is now associated with the
Speaking as WG member:
I think it would be good to hone in on the BGP PE failure convergence use case
as suggested by Robert. It seems there is some interest here although I’m not
convinced the IGP is the right place to solve this problem.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Lsr on behalf of Gyan Mishra
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 4:01 AM Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:36 AM Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Robert, I believe the original intention was related to having the
>>> data plane converge quickly when summarization is used and flip so traffic
>>> converges from the
Hi all,
Many thanks for these value questions and comments from Chris, Ron, Acee in the
LSR 109 session. I summarize them as follows, and supplement my answer. Waiting
forwards to further discussion with WG.
Q1: are you using this information to determine the routing to the network?
On one
Hi Huaimo,
Thanks a lot for your review and comments. Please find my responses in line
[Yali].
Best regards,
Yali
From: Huaimo Chen [mailto:huaimo.c...@futurewei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 12:59 PM
To: wangyali ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version for
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:36 AM Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
>Robert, I believe the original intention was related to having the data
>> plane converge quickly when summarization is used and flip so traffic
>> converges from the Active ABR to the Backup ABR.
>>
>
> I do not buy this use case.
Robert, I believe the original intention was related to having the data
> plane converge quickly when summarization is used and flip so traffic
> converges from the Active ABR to the Backup ABR.
>
I do not buy this use case. Flooding within the area is fast such that both
ABRs will get the
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:06 AM Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Moreover it seems that it will just also prevent any local protection to
>> locally bypass the failed destination.
>>
>> *[WAJ] No, It will trigger the local protection instead, not prevent.*
>>
>>
> You missed my point.
>
> I am talking
> Moreover it seems that it will just also prevent any local protection to
> locally bypass the failed destination.
>
> *[WAJ] No, It will trigger the local protection instead, not prevent.*
>
>
You missed my point.
I am talking about *local* protection in a sense of adjacent node(s) to the
Thanks Acee for the feedback.
We will add more detail to the use cases.
Gyan
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 3:45 AM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> When the PUA use cases were presented today in the LSR meeting, I made the
> comment that the RIB interactions for each use case would be different and
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
