Shraddha -
Glad we have come to a common understanding.
One point inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Shraddha Hegde
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 10:47 PM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; lsr@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: UPA and planned/unplanned signalling
>
> Les,
>
> Pls see inline..
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
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 -
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
