Hi Les, thank you for bringing the real-life scenarios to the discussion. In your opinion, what prevents an operator from monitoring a remote PE using a multi-hop BFD? Do you have an estimated number of such sessions each PE must handle? What could be the required guaranteed failure detection time?
Best regards, Greg On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 1:08 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Chris/Tony – > > > > We have received requests from real customers who both need to summarize > AND would like better response time to loss of reachability to individual > nodes. > > If they could operate at the necessary scale without summarizing they > would have already – so telling customers to simply make sure they don’t > use summaries isn’t helpful. > > > > There are then two ways to respond: > > > > 1)Sorry, when you use summaries you lose the ability to receive state > information about individual prefixes covered by the summary. There is > nothing we can do to help you. > > > > This seems to be what the two of you are saying. > > > > 2)We can provide a way to improve response time for the loss of > reachability to individual destinations covered by a summary, but its use > will be limited to isolated failures. Failures which affect a significant > number of destinations at the same time will realize no benefit from the > solution. If this limitation is acceptable then we have proposals that we > think will be useful. > > > > That’s what we are trying to do. > > > > Les > > > > > > > > *From:* Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com> *On Behalf Of *Tony Li > *Sent:* Monday, January 3, 2022 1:09 PM > *To:* Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> > *Cc:* Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; Shraddha Hegde < > shrad...@juniper.net>; Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; Hannes > Gredler <han...@gredler.at>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE > > > > > > > > On Jan 3, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: > > > > And I'm saying if a prefix is important enough to merit a bunch of new > protocol extensions and state, then it's important enough to simply be left > out of the summarization in the first place. > > And then people get what they want, w/o protocol changes/upgrades, and > it's using time tested and hardened IGP code and designs. > > > > > > +1 > > > > T > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
