Bruno,
the PIC is used unchanged with PULSE.
The only difference is that the PIC is triggered by the pulse arrival,
instead of the IGP route removal. We have made a prototype of it and it
works fine.
thanks,
Peter
On 06/01/2022 09:09, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Gyan,
You are
Greg,
On 05/01/2022 18:39, Greg Mirsky wrote:
Hi Aijun,
thank you for pointing that out. I agree that in some deployment
scenarios, only a subset of PEs will be required to be monitored by an
ABR. But, as I look at the problem, the general use case should be the
worst case scenario, i.e.,
Peter,
Thanks for your answer.
Please see inline [Bruno]
> From: Peter Psenak
> Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 10:25 AM
>
> Bruno,
>
> the PIC is used unchanged with PULSE.
[Bruno] OK. Therefore, from a FIB standpoint, does this mean that the scaling
properties are also unchanged compared
Peter,
> From: Peter Psenak
> Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 11:03 AM
>
> Bruno,
>
> On 06/01/2022 10:40, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > Thanks for your answer.
> > Please see inline [Bruno]
> >
> >
> >> From: Peter Psenak
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 10:25 AM
>
Hi Gyan,
You are referring to both summarization and BGP PIC (edge).
BGP PIC is quite old story, but if my memory serve me well, BGP PIC edge relies
on the presence of the specific (/32) prefix information in the FIB. Hence it’s
not clear to me how you can have both prefix summarization and BGP
Bruno,
On 06/01/2022 11:18, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Peter,
From: Peter Psenak
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 11:03 AM
Bruno,
On 06/01/2022 10:40, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Peter,
Thanks for your answer.
Please see inline [Bruno]
From: Peter Psenak
Sent: Thursday,
Peter,
So far you and others have been saying all along that one of the
applications which uses PULSE can be BGP.
If so I am afraid this is not PIC (== Prefix *Independent *Convergence)
anymore. And I think this was Bruno's valid point.
Today BGP registers with RIB next hops for tracking, When
Apologies ... want to correct myself for clarity:
was: "active and backup paths all going to the next hop X"
should be: "active paths all going to the next hop X and backup paths going
to different next hops"
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:31 PM Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Peter,
>
> So far you and
The way I read this is that other applications could use the generic IGP pulse
mechanism as opposed to other applications using the route unreachable signals
conveyed using the IGP pulse mechanism.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Lsr on behalf of Robert Raszuk
Date: Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 6:54 AM
Hi Bruno
As far as BGP PIC (edge) it is completely orthogonal to summarization
framework the PUA/PULSE solutions is addressing.
Let’s say for example you have ingress area A and egress area B and both
have summaries of the other area. So all LPM longer matches for ingress
area A exist within
As Co-Author of Area proxy from an operators POV I would be supportive of
applicability draft work as a means to end end to progress both drafts.
Kind Regards
Gyan
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 2:21 PM Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
> I’d very much support applicability draft work!
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
> On
Hi Everyone,
I read the draft and support its adoption.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: Lsr on behalf of Christian Hopps
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 1:58 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org ; lsr-...@ietf.org
; cho...@chopps.org ;
Hello,
I read this document and have two basic questions.
1. The advertisement of inter-AS TE LSA in OSPFV2/V3 itself indicates that the
link is outside IGP domain.
This information is good enough to apply special treatment to these
links.
Why is it necessary to advertise
13 matches
Mail list logo
