Robert
In your BGP PUA/PULSE options where BGP detects the Down PE, how would that
event be sent back to IGP to trigger it to converge on alternate path.
As this is an event notification of a Down PE would you use the same next
hop tracking BGP callback to IGP for the event notification or maybe
> So the IGP would provide reachability between the PE and RR loopbacks and
> so the IGP would have to be converged for BGP TCP session to establish.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
Yes. Entire concept of PUA/PULSE is about detecting transition to "DOWN"
state of the PE.
So talking about IGP
Hi, Robert:
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Nov 27, 2021, at 21:59, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> Hi Aijun,
>>>
>>> Yes BGP option 2 as I described gives you PIC effect. In fact I am quite
>>> convinced that if done right it can be much faster then IGP flooding
>>> especially at scale. Please
Hi Aijun,
>
> Yes BGP option 2 as I described gives you PIC effect. In fact I am quite
> convinced that if done right it can be much faster then IGP flooding
> especially at scale. Please recall all safety belts build into IGP to slow
> down churn when multiple events happens in a time scale.
Hi, Robert:
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Nov 27, 2021, at 18:17, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> Aijun,
>
>> AJ] For your proposed BGP solutions, Peter has responded you and I agree
>> with his opinions with the followings additional comments:
>
> All Peter keeps saying is that the solution
Aijun,
AJ] For your proposed BGP solutions, Peter has responded you and I agree
> with his opinions with the followings additional comments:
>
All Peter keeps saying is that the solution must work where BGP is non
existent. I question whether BGP in any network is non-existent. .
> [Option 1]:
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] 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
> 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
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 you detect that the PE went down. Furthermore as
you know
Robert,
On 25/11/2021 18:25, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Dear LSR WG,
I wanted to visualize the scenario we are so deeply discussing here.
Specifically BGP vs IGP flooding as well as applicability of RFC8679.
Below are three options comparing what it takes to distribute bad news
in BGP vs IGP.
201 - 218 of 218 matches
Mail list logo
