Hi Les,
> On Mar 28, 2023, at 20:53, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>
> Acee -
>
> So your proposal is to have the neighbor of the restarting router be
> responsible for ensuring that the Router LSA updates are done in the proper
> order.
> I agree this can work as well.
>
> I still think
So Les, your concern AFAIU it is maybe bit overwrought. Local (assuming
remote is the unplanned bouncer, in chain example B local A remote)
advertises its LSA with the link failed and that gets flooded immediately
(I assume the link local-remote is *not* a minimal cut in the topology so
there are
Les, all
> From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
>
> Chris -
>
>
> However, that is the missing piece, so it works if we also add a capability
> bit. If we have the capability bit you now know which routers are processing
> the container TLV and which aren't. That should be enough info to route
Acee -
So your proposal is to have the neighbor of the restarting router be
responsible for ensuring that the Router LSA updates are done in the proper
order.
I agree this can work as well.
I still think there is one element missing from your proposal i.e.,
guaranteeing that the Router LSA
Hi, All:As discussed within the list, we have noticed there will be confusion for the usage/implementation/deployment of LSInfinity. Because the main motivation for this field is to let the legacy nodes bypass the PUA/UPA message, we propose use the MaxAge of the LSA to accomplish such task. The
Hi Les
> On Mar 28, 2023, at 4:44 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> (For some reason, email from you now goes into my Junk folder – delaying my
> response. )
> Acee –
> Consider the simple topology:
> A---B---C
> A is the restarting router.
> C represents “the rest of the network”
Chris -
However, that is the missing piece, so it works if we also add a capability
bit. If we have the capability bit you now know which routers are processing
the container TLV and which aren't. That should be enough info to route
correctly.
Using a container TLV *and* a capability bit is
Chris -
Please see inline - I'll try to conform to your request about ">>>" quoting -
but given that this style does not identify who made the comment, I have found
in the past that this style becomes very hard to follow after a couple of
replies.
Though perhaps that could be said of any
Most maintenance operations I have seen use ISIS overload with max metric
advertise mechanism to
Switch the overlay services to another node. While this mechanism works fine
for MPLS environments that
Leak the loopbacks across domains and in BGP-LU based environments, this
mechanism is not
That explains it and it is actually the right thing to do from the perspective
of the IETF document process.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt
Note that LSP is not asterisked as being well known and “Label Switched Path”
is the first alternative. It should always be
Hi Les, Liyan,
With the change I suggested, a restarting router should be able to flood a
Router-LSA without the link adjacencies before the corresponding neighbor comes
full with the restarting. Additionally, if there are implementation-specific
delays (such as SPF, route download, etc) that
Hi,
So I agree that using this new container TLV along with old TLVs doesn't help.
However, it is worth nothing that if *only* the container TLV was used (i.e., once a TLV
became too large it would be removed and placed inside container TLVs) then it would
actually represent a safer way to
ok yes, I didn't think through the step 3 ...
thanks Les
-- tony
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:44 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
wrote:
> Tony -
>
>
>
> *From:* Tony Przygienda
> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2023 5:11 PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> *Cc:* Acee Lindem ; Liyan Gong <
>
The following sentence should be:
> If it is planned, why the overlay service being switched over as scheduled?
If it is planned, why doesn’t the overlay service be switched over as scheduled?
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Mar 28, 2023, at 19:53, Aijun Wang wrote:
>
> There is no
There is no significant benefits to use the prefix unreachable announcement
mechanism to transfer the planned maintenance information.
If it is planned, why the overlay service being switched over as scheduled?
The PUA/UPA mechanism is mainly for the fast switchover of overlay services
upon
On 28/03/2023 11:41, Aijun Wang wrote:
There is already overload bit to accomplish the maintenance purposes,
Why do you guys repeat such work again?
OL-bit is only propagated inside the area. We are solving
inter-area/inter-domain routing convergence here.
Peter
Aijun Wang
China
There is already overload bit to accomplish the maintenance purposes,
Why do you guys repeat such work again?
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Mar 28, 2023, at 18:00, Shraddha Hegde
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> > Second, if you say this is needed for BGP free deployments then I question
Hi Robert,
> Second, if you say this is needed for BGP free deployments then I question
> the merit on the basis that UPA is >ephemeral and expires say in 120 sec
> which will not be enough for most planned maintenance work. So if someone
> >insists to add UP Flag it should be not just a bit
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..
19 matches
Mail list logo
