Les,
Pls see inline..
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 11:02 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: UPA and planned/unplanned signalling
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Shraddha -
Thanx
Hi Les, Tony and Acee,
Appreciate your valuable suggestion. We will update the draft in the next
version as you suggested, including the title and detailed mechanism.
What Les has elabrated about the SA bit solution in the following email is
consistent with the idea. Thank you again for
Shraddha -
Thanx for the response.
So the way you are proposing to use UPA on the receiving nodes is:
1)For unplanned loss of reachability trigger BGP-PIC for immediate response
2)For planned loss of reachability, don't trigger BGP-PIC - simply trigger a
best path calculation considering the
Hi Shraddha,
So are you saying that ABR will inject UPA with U Flag when it notices
unreachability and it will inject UP Flag when it notices Max Metric ?
And the remote end point receiving UPA will still in both cases result in
identical action ?
Thx,
R
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 9:25 PM
Hi Les,
Pls see inline for replies.
Juniper Business Use Only
-Original Message-
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 9:10 AM
To: Shraddha Hegde ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: UPA and planned/unplanned signalling
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Shraddha -
Hi Barry,
Looks like RFC Editor expanded the "LSP" abbreviation as version -26 (last
before publication) says this:
* The IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV MAY be advertised in an LSP of any number.* IS-
IS router MAY advertise more than one IS-IS FAD Sub-TLV for a given
Flexible Algorithm (see Section
Shraddha -
To follow up on our discussion over chat at the LSR meeting yesterday...
At a remote ABR, if BGP had already been told about a planned node maintenance
event (by means that is outside the scope of the UPA draft), then BGP would
have moved traffic away from the node on which the
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9350,
"IGP Flexible Algorithm".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7406
--
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Barry Friedman
Tony -
From: Tony Przygienda
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 5:11 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Acee Lindem ; Liyan Gong ;
chen.mengxiao ; lsr ; Weiqiang Cheng
; linchangwang
Subject: Re: [Lsr]
NewVersionNotificationfordraft-cheng-ospf-adjacency-suppress-00.txt
I didn't say "bigger", I
I didn't say "bigger", I said "random" ;-}
I tend to agree with SA bit solution though I don't grok how you can stop
flooding with that precisely. especially since you cannot rely on sequence
of hellos and DB sync packets arriving at the receiving node. And SA AFAIR
assumes LLC or whatever while
Tony –
It seems to me that the larger sequence # solution is less likely to work the
more you use it.
In other words, if I restart once a month, each time I need to pick an “even
bigger sequence #” to account for the starting point of the previous restart.
I know that with a 32 bit sequence
thought about it. there are also other solutions to the problem (or rather
to make it significantly less likely/shorter duration since perfect
solution given we don't purge DB of an adjacenct router when we lose
adjacency to it do not exist) such as e.g. choosing seqnr# on startup in a
way that
Hi Liyan,
> On Mar 27, 2023, at 06:36, Liyan Gong wrote:
>
>
> Hi Acee,
>
>
>
> Thank you for sharing your idea about the draft. Because of the time
> limitation in the meeting, Let‘s continue here.
>
>
>
> 1. First, About your doubts about the existence of the problem, I would like
Robert,
On 27/03/2023 17:18, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> All it does that it advertises UPA for prefixes that are summarized
on it and change from reachable to unreachable
Ok but this is a bit too vague,
If my ABR disconnects from an area nodes it should remove the summary
and not inject
> All it does that it advertises UPA for prefixes that are summarized on
it and change from reachable to unreachable
Ok but this is a bit too vague,
If my ABR disconnects from an area nodes it should remove the summary and
not inject possibly 100s or 1000s of UPAs. And IMO the draft should
Robert,
On 27/03/2023 16:57, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Peter,
> 4. Is an UPA for a /24 equivalent to 255 UPA for /32? (i.e. will
> trigger BGP PIC edge for 255 /32)
no. For BGP PIC to be triggered by UPA, the UPA must be sent for the
prefix that is used to resolve BGP
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> > 4. Is an UPA for a /24 equivalent to 255 UPA for /32? (i.e. will
> > trigger BGP PIC edge for 255 /32)
>
> no. For BGP PIC to be triggered by UPA, the UPA must be sent for the
> prefix that is used to resolve BGP prefixes. But the treatment of the
> UPA is outside of the
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Link State Routing
(LSR) WG of the IETF.
Title : IGP Flexible Algorithms Reverse Affinity Constraint
Authors : Peter Psenak
Hi Peter,
While perhaps one could argue on the benefits for UPA in single domain IMO
the same benefits hardly apply in multi-domain case.
Reason being that this is just a pulse and whatever event (and local domain
flooding) triggered UPA it should be able to also trigger withdrawal of
service
Hi Acee,
Thank you for sharing your idea about the draft. Because of the time limitation
in the meeting, Let‘s continue here.
1. First, About your doubts about the existence of the problem, I would like to
check whether I have elaborated it clearly through the following email and
Hi Bruno,
On 27/03/2023 06:59, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Hi authors,
Please find below some questions.
1. Assuming ABR1 advertises IP1 with metric 10 while ABR2 advertises
IP1 with MAX metric. Is this prefix reachable or unreachable (or both)?
UPA is meant to be sent only for
Hi Robert,
On 27/03/2023 10:05, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi,
I would like to get more clarification in respect to extending External
LSAs for UPA. Area summary use case is pretty clear - but in case of
redistribution (typical src of external LSAs) IMO we are going way too
far with this. Let's
Agree.
The possible scenario for UP flag is not the original intention of our
discussion.
We should abandon it and focus mainly on the other aspects of the solution.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Mar 27, 2023, at 17:06, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to get more
The WG adoption poll has completed with modest support and no objection to
making this a WG document.
Please republish the draft as draft-ietf-lsr-igp-flex-algo-reverse-affinity-00
Thanks,
Acee
> On Mar 10, 2023, at 8:08 AM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
>
> The begins the LSR WG adoption call for
Hi,
I would like to get more clarification in respect to extending External
LSAs for UPA. Area summary use case is pretty clear - but in case of
redistribution (typical src of external LSAs) IMO we are going way too far
with this. Let's all keep in mind that this is a pulse designed to trigger
Hi, Bruno:Let me answer some questions from you based on the current PUA solution. From the inline replies, we think the converged draft should be based on PUA draft.Aijun WangChina TelecomOn Mar 27, 2023, at 14:00, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Hi
authors,
Please find below some
26 matches
Mail list logo
