> "When the next hop to a destination node changes, the node will > generate a triggered notification message. The triggered notification > message will update SAV tables and SAV graphs in nodes along the new > path.
IMHO -- if you're going to put more information into BGP, do so as a new message type, rather than as yet another AF ... BGP is already heavily overloaded. Anything that adds to the churn of updates/etc. in BGP could potentially degrade the entire routing system. If you're using BGP merely as transport, add a new message type so the code and functionality can be largely separated from existing BGP mechanisms. > " Just like packet loss from temporal loop during routing update cannot > be completely avoided." In link-state protocols this is true. In path-vector protocols (like BGP) and distance-vector protocols, you generally end up temporarily dropping traffic rather than looping it during convergence events. Note that if you're relying on BGP, there are several known conditions where BGP will not converge--ever--and will experience serious churn. This is bound to happen with protocols that manage multiple metrics; all such protocols will be multi-stable in some way or another. During these "non-convergence events," you might well experience both dropping and looping traffic. /r _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
