t;
>>>
>>>
>>>PUAM can track the unreachability of the important component
>>>
>>>prefixes to ensure traffic is not black hole sink routed for the
>>>
>>> above overlay services.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>&g
ic is not black hole sink routed for the
>>
>>above overlay services.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then considering only the BFD sessions among PEs are not enough, even we
>> put aside the BFD sessions overhead on each PE.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Monday, July 18, 2022 11:06 AM
> *To:* Aijun Wang
> *Cc:* Robert Raszuk ; Christian Hopps <
> cho...@chopps.org>; Peter Psenak ; lsr
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] UPA/PUA
>
>
>
> Hi Aijun,
>
> I cannot figure out how you draw such a conclusion from my comments to
>
Hi Greg,
I am observing we are partially on the same page.
But if we compare full mesh PE-PE multihop BFD sessions vs PE-ABR then
flooding or DROID to remote PEs don't you think that the latter model is
far more scalable and operationally friendly ?
To make it clear - I am not against PE-PE
China Telecom
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 11:06 AM
To: Aijun Wang
Cc: Robert Raszuk ; Christian Hopps ;
Peter Psenak ; lsr
Subject: Re: [Lsr] UPA/PUA
Hi Aijun,
I cannot figure out how you draw such a conclusion from my comments to Robert.
You may recall that from very
Hi Aijun,
I cannot figure out how you draw such a conclusion from my comments to
Robert. You may recall that from very early in the discussion, I was not
enthusiastic, to put it lightly, about either of the solutions. Instead, I
believe that multi-hop BFD should be used to monitor the continuity
Then considering both the scalability and possible false negative of BFD based
solution, can we say that the PUA/UPA solution is more preferable?
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 8:39 AM
To: Robert
