Robert & Acee I have been working with Aijun to help clean up the verbiage in the draft which after IETF 109 will plan to do an update based on feedback.
I will be presenting this draft as well as the passive interface draft tomorrow morning. It has been challenging trying to graphically depict Aijun’s goals and intentions but I have tried my best to do so in the presentation tomorrow morning. Kind Regards Gyan On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 11:44 AM Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > Hi Aijun, > > I would in fact only propose that the presented mechanism is narrowed down > to invalidate BGP (service) routes - in fact their next hops. > > The reason being that the moment you make the solution generic, moreover > the moment you want it to be used in RIB and data plane I am afraid you are > running into similar (even if local) deaggregation mechanism like recently > described in RIFT. That would kill all the scalability of advertising > summary routes in the first place and I bet would face lots of opposition. > > Thx, > R. > > >> I would actually trim most use cases leaving just one - to signal remote >> service node (ex: PE) going down in the presence of summary route being >> advertised from remote area or pop. >> >> [WAJ] Yes, this may be the most useful use case, but the PUA mechanism > can also apply to other scenarios. We want to make it one general solution. > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
