Hi Robert:
There may be other egress protection solution. However, the PLR is a P node and
cannot sense BGP information. The PLR needs to establish a master/backup PE
relationship. In some implementations as I know, It was manually specified in
some way. Dynamic and automated I'm not sure if
Hi, Robert:
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Nov 27, 2021, at 08:26, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Aijun,
>
>
>> [WAJ] As Peter and I state several times, we want to find the generic
>> solution for different scenarios. BGP exist or not.
>
> Maybe you missed my point. I am not aware of any
Aijun,
[WAJ] For SRv6 policy based tunnel, the previous node may not be the
> neighbor node. It may locate in other area.
>
Only in the case of binding SIDs on the penultimate segment endpoint such
signalling would perhaps help.
In all other cases the information MUST be propagated to the
Hi,Shraddha:
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Nov 26, 2021, at 12:49, Shraddha Hegde wrote:
>
>
> Huzhibo,
>
> Local protection is always executed on the node where failure occurs (for
> link protection) and the previous node
> (for node failure).
[WAJ] For SRv6 policy based tunnel, the
Aijun,
[WAJ] As Peter and I state several times, we want to find the generic
> solution for different scenarios. BGP exist or not.
>
Maybe you missed my point. I am not aware of any production router stack
which would not support BGP. That is irrespective of if BGP is used for
service
Hi, Robert:
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Nov 27, 2021, at 00:47, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> Peter,
>
> As I told you many times I do see a need to signal summary member liveness.
> Otherwise I would not be spending time here.
[WAJ] Welcome to join us.
>
> But what I am trying to discuss
Mike, thanks, all very clever comments in fact, answers inline and addressed in
new version -06 just publihsed
-- tony
On 25/11/2021, 21:04, "Michael Richardson via Datatracker"
wrote:
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Reviewer: Michael Richardson
Review result: Has
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.
Title : IS-IS Flood Reflection
Authors : Tony Przygienda
Chris Bowers
> Pulse cleans up itself without any additional flooding, that's the whole
> idea of it.
That's the most scary and not well understood part of it. Ghosts ! Appears
and magically disappears.
> It also is not part of the LSDB that IGP uses for
> computation, so it does not affect the scale.
>
Robert,
On 26/11/2021 17:47, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Peter,
As I told you many times I do see a need to signal summary member
liveness. Otherwise I would not be spending time here.
But what I am trying to discuss is the proposed mechanism of such
signalling and possible alternatives.
I
Peter,
As I told you many times I do see a need to signal summary member liveness.
Otherwise I would not be spending time here.
But what I am trying to discuss is the proposed mechanism of such
signalling and possible alternatives.
I suggested to you to do selective leaking. I do not recall
Robert,
On 26/11/2021 17:18, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Peter,
Technically I see no justification to run any service within your own
domian over IPSec.
tell people that are doing so, not me.
In those cases simple IP encapsulation works fine.
So let's zoom on this scenario ... Your PEs
Peter,
Technically I see no justification to run any service within your own
domian over IPSec.
In those cases simple IP encapsulation works fine.
So let's zoom on this scenario ... Your PEs communicate over IP
encapsulation which does not require any connection establishment.
They start to
Robert
Just want to chime in on the primary context of PUA/Pulse design is to
provide protection of the underlay egress PE next hops host routes that are
summarized to provide an egress PE protection mechanism similar to RFC 8679
but focused on IGP to track the component prefixes of the summary
Hi Robert,
On 25/11/2021 20:21, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Peter,
First BGP MP_UNREACH propagation via RRs is really fast.
Please observe that if your BGP implementation is smart you do not need
to withdraw prefix by prefix in any application which uses VRFs. You can
withdraw RD/64s only when
Huzhibo,
> specifying the master/backup relationship of egress protection is complex
Sure is - but there is absolutely no requirement to do it. BGP already
carries all information needed to instantiate such protection. It is
therefore all dynamic and automated.
As said cost is extra LFIB space
Hi, Shraddha:
If there are a large number of CE-to-PE mix-homing scenarios, specifying
the master/backup relationship of egress protection is complex, which greatly
increases deployment complexity. Therefore, local protection is not applicable
to all scenarios. In addition, local
17 matches
Mail list logo
