When the node is up, all the following process are passed to the application layer. This is the normal procedures of the IGP should do. According to your logic, IGP are solving the wrong problem now?
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Jan 15, 2022, at 08:30, John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > > Correct, but as Tony, Robert and I have noted, a node being up does not mean > that an application on that node is up, which means that your proposed > solution is probably a solution to the wrong problem. Further, Robert’s > solution is probably a solution to the right problem. > > Yours Irrespectively, > > John > > > Juniper Business Use Only > From: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 5:53 PM > To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net> > Cc: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > <ginsb...@cisco.com>; Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; Shraddha Hegde > <shrad...@juniper.net>; Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>; Hannes Gredler > <han...@gredler.at>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > <ppse...@cisco.com> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > Hi, John: > Please note if the node is down, the service will not be accessed. > We are discussing the “DOWN” notification, not the “UP” notification. > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > > On Jan 15, 2022, at 00:25, John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > Comment inline below. > > Yours Irrespectively, > > John > > > Juniper Business Use Only > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:15 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com> > Cc: Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org>; Aijun Wang > <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; Shraddha Hegde <shrad...@juniper.net>; Tony Li > <tony...@tony.li>; Hannes Gredler <han...@gredler.at>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; > Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > 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. > > [JD] Right. Just because a node is up and connected to the network does not > imply that a given application is active on it. > > 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
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
