Hi Les, *> You seem focused on the notification delivery mechanism only.*
Not really. For me, an advertised summary is like a prefix when you are dialing a country code. Call signaling knows to go north if you are calling a crab shop in Alaska. Now such direction does not indicate if the shop is open or has crabs. That info you need to get over the top as a service. So I am much more in favor to make the service to tell you directly or indirectly that it is available. Best, R. On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:07 AM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> wrote: > Robert - > > > > *From:* Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> > *Sent:* Monday, January 10, 2022 2:56 PM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > *Cc:* Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; > Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>; 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 > > > > Les, > > > > 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. > > > > We all agree the request is legitimate. > > > > *[LES:] It does not seem to me that everyone does agree on that – but I > appreciate that you agree.* > > > > But do they realize that to practically employ what you are proposing (new > PDU flooding) requires 100% software upgrade to all IGP nodes in the entire > network ? Do they also realize that to effectively use it requires data > plane change (sure software but data plane code is not as simple as PI) on > all ingress PEs ? > > > > *[LES:] As far as forwarding, as Peter has indicated, we have a POC and it > works fine. And there are many possible ways for implementations to go.* > > *It may or may not require 100% software upgrade – but I agree a > significant number of nodes have to be upgraded to at least support pulse > flooding.* > > > > > > And with scale requirements you are describing it seems this would be > 1000s of nodes (if not more). That's massive if compared to > alternative approaches to achieve the same or even better results. > > > > *[LES:] Be happy to review other solutions if/when someone writes them up.* > > *I think what is overlooked in the discussion of other solutions is that > reachability info is provided by the IGP. If all the IGP advertises is a > summary then how would individual loss of reachability become known at > scale?* > > *You seem focused on the notification delivery mechanism only.* > > > > * Les* > > > > Many thx, > > Robert > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
