Hi Aijun,
> [WAJ] We just want to avoid such silent discard behavior, especially for the > scenario that there is BGP session run on such failure prefix. Stuffing things in the IGP seems like a poor way of determining that there’s a BGP failure. Wouldn’t BFD be a more appropriate way of determining the loss of connectivity? Or aggressive BGP keepalive timers? > The other side of BGP peer can quickly remove the BGP session when it > receives such PUA message which tell it the other peer is down now. Other BGP > peer protection procedures can then take effects on. > The immediate notification of the failure prefix can certainly accelerate the > switchover of BGP control plane and also the service traffic that such BGP > session carries. The IGP is a very poor way of delivering service liveness information. >>> For scenarios 2, because the specified prefixes can be accessed via another >>> ABR, then we can let this ABR to advertise the details prefixes information >>> for the specified address, which behavior is similar with RIFT, as also >>> mentioned in the presentation materials. >> >> >> Agreed. > > [WAJ] Even for this scenario, the advertisement of the detail prefixes is > trigger also via the PUA message from other ABR. That seems 100% unnecessary as the longer prefix will attract the traffic in the way that you want. Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
