Hi, Robert:
When the node is failed, or is detached from the network, it can’t send the BGP update to other peers already. And, as we have discussed, the potential usage of such information is not only BGP, but may be tunnel endpoints. Yes, I agree, the light speed is the same. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom From: lsr-boun...@ietf.org <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 4:40 PM To: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com>; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>; Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Lsr] 【Responses for Comments on PUAM Draft】RE: IETF 112 LSR Meeting Minutes Aijun, > or lose the fast convergences Putting aside all the drawbacks already discussed, what makes you think that flooding LSPs or LSAs across tens of hops over 2 or maybe soon 8 areas would be any faster then sending BGP UPDATE message(s) across 2-3 RRs ? Assume you need to detect the failure and react to it in your RP/RE regardless how it is signalled. If triggered by ABRs you not only need to detect the failure of a node, but also flood it locally within the local area. Light propagation speed last time I checked does not seems to be different for BGP vs OSPF/ISIS packets. Thx, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
