Hi Les, do you see anything that requires further specification in addition to RFC 5883?
Regards Greg On Mon, Jan 10, 2022, 17:14 Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg= 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Tony – > > > > I could be more specific regarding my opinion about various alternatives > that have been mentioned (BFD, OAM, BGP, pub-sub) – but it doesn’t make > sense to me to comment on proposals which have not actually been defined. > > If someone (not necessarily you) wants to write up any of these proposals > then we (the WG/Routing Area) could have a meaningful discussion about such > alternatives. > > > > In the meantime, we started with the IGPs because: > > > > a)IGPs have the raw reachability info – they don’t have to get it from > some other entity > > b)IGPs have the reliable flooding mechanism > > > > Given that we want to address a real deployment issue in a timely manner, > we want to move forward. > > > > We – meaning the WG/IETF – are tasked with defining practical solutions to > real problems. It’s fine to object to a proposal – but that doesn’t get us > to a solution. > > I am not saying that you specifically are responsible for defining an > alternate solution – but if “we” are to progress then we either need to > accept an IGP solution or define an alternative. > > > > Now, if you are saying the problem doesn’t need to be solved – then we > just disagree. > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Tony Li <tony1ath...@gmail.com> *On Behalf Of *Tony Li > *Sent:* Monday, January 10, 2022 4:43 PM > *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > *Cc:* Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) < > ppse...@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 > > > > > > Les, > > > > > > And if customers could do what he suggested then they would not have an > issue. > > > > But there are deployments where what he suggested is not possible – > largely I think because the set of “prefixes of interest” is in itself > large. > > > > > > Well, the alleged customers have not come forward to explain the > situation. I would welcome more specifics, even under NDA. It’s hard to > relate to allegations of scale without specifics. If the area has that many > PEs in it, then is really too large to be a single area in the first place? > > > > > > So while not all customers have an issue, some customers do and we are > trying to find a way to address those deployments. > > > > As far as the alternative proposals, I will comment on them if/when there > is something visible – but I think they will all suffer from scale issues. > > > > > > They have been proposed here and have not been refuted. > > > > Everything always suffers from scale issues, so that’s not exactly > constructive. > > > > I would be more than happy to write up the pub-sub proposal, but … it’s > not my customer and it’s not in my charter to contribute to your revenue. :) > > > > Tony > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
