Hannes -
Please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-event-notification-00#section-4.1
The new Pulse LSPs don't have remaining lifetime - quite intentionally.
They are only retained long enough to support flooding.
But, you remind me that we need to specify how the checksum is calculated. Will
do that in the next revision.
Thanx.
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannes Gredler <han...@gredler.at>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 11:22 AM
> To: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>
> Cc: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; lsr
> <lsr@ietf.org>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; Shraddha Hegde
> <shrad...@juniper.net>
> Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
>
> hi peter,
>
> Just curious: Do you have an idea how to make short-lived LSPs compatible
> with the problem stated in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7987
>
> Would like to hear your thoughts on that.
>
> thanks,
>
> /hannes
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 01:15:04PM +0100, Peter Psenak wrote:
> | Hi Robert,
> |
> | On 30/11/2021 12:40, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> | > Hey Peter,
> | >
> | > > #1 - I am not ok with the ephemeral nature of the advertisements.
> (I
> | > > proposed an alternative).
> | >
> | > LSPs have their age today. One can generate LSP with the lifetime of 1
> | > min. Protocol already allows that.
> | >
> | >
> | > That's a pretty clever comparison indeed. I had a feeling it will come
> | > up here and here you go :)
> | >
> | > But I am afraid this is not comparing apple to apples.
> | >
> | > In LSPs or LSA flooding you have a bunch of mechanisms to make sure the
> | > information stays fresh
> | > and does not time out. And the default refresh in ISIS if I recall was
> | > something like 15 minutes ?
> |
> | yes, default refresh is 900 for the default lifetime of 1200 sec. Most
> | people change both to much larger values.
> |
> | If I send the LSP with the lifetime of 1 min, there will never be any
> | refresh of it. It will last 1 min and then will be purged and removed from
> | the database. The only difference with the Pulse LSP is that it is not
> | purged to avoid additional flooding.
> |
> |
> | >
> | > Today in all MPLS networks host routes from all areas are "spread"
> | > everywhere including all P and PE routers, that's how LS protocols
> | > distribute data, we have no other way to do that in LS IGPs.
> | >
> | >
> | > Can't you run OSPF over GRE ? For ISIS Henk had proposal not so long ago
> | > to run it over TCP too.
> | > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hsmit-lsr-isis-flooding-over-
> tcp-00
> |
> | you can run anything over GRE, including IGPs, and you don't need TCP
> | transport for that. I don't see the relevance here. Are you suggesting to
> | create GRE tunnels to all PEs that need the pulses? Nah, that would be an
> | ugly requirement.
> |
> | thanks,
> | Peter
> |
> |
> | >
> | > Seems like a perfect fit !
> | >
> | > Thx,
> | > R.
> |
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
