Hi Bruno,
> “A Level 2 LSP that contains the Area Proxy TLV MUST NOT be flooded to an
> Outside Router. »
> Agreed (so far)
>
> “A Level 2 LSP with a source system identifier that is found in the Level 1
> LSDB MUST NOT be flooded to an Outside Router.”
> I’m not sure to agree.
> If that
Hi Bruno,
Thank you for your comments.
> 1)
> OLD: The
>advertisement in the Proxy LSP informs the remainder of the network
>that packets directed to the SID will be forwarded by one of the
>Inside Edge Nodes and the Area SID will be consumed.
>
> NEW:
> The
>advertisement in
Agreed that Rift negative disaggregation and PUA proposed are in no way
comparable. Sorry to make that analogy but unfortunately it was the first
thing that came to mind when reading the draft.
I was I will work with Aijun to help fill the gaps & points noted in this
thread without adding
Speaking as WG member….
This is in no way comparable. This solution presented in the draft is full of
holes and non-backward compatible. The problem may be solvable but the question
is whether or not the required complexity is worse than a problem that could
be solved with proper network
In support of what Tony has said, I think any comparison between what RIFT is
doing and what is proposed in this draft is inappropriate.
RIFT is able to determine what destinations exist in the network but are not
reachable via a certain subset of the topology – and then generate negative
I read the draft since the longish thread triggered my interest. As Peter
said very thin ice walking with magic soft-state-timers for (to me)
entirely unclear benefit and lots of interesting questions completely
omitted like e.g. what will happen if a mix of old and new routers are in
the network.
Hi Tony,
I may have a comment on 5.2. Filtering LSP information.
This is old text, but new re-reading.
"A Level 2 LSP that contains the Area Proxy TLV MUST NOT be flooded to an
Outside Router. >
Agreed (so far)
"A Level 2 LSP with a source system identifier that is found in the Level 1
LSDB
Hi Tony,
Please find below some nits/minor comments. Please feel free to silently
discard.
1)
OLD: The
advertisement in the Proxy LSP informs the remainder of the network
that packets directed to the SID will be forwarded by one of the
Inside Edge Nodes and the Area SID will be
Hi Tony,
I've read the diff for -03 and -04.
The new encoding of the Area SID is good for me.
And thank you for listening to my use case and suggestion.
Thanks,
--Bruno
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tony...@tony.li
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 7:02 PM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Hi Aijun
Sure I would be interested in joining as co-author of the draft.
This an interesting topic as how PUA or negative disaggretion can prevent
black hole routing of summaries when “Longest prefix match” does not exist
due to link or router down event, and how to signal via negative
10 matches
Mail list logo
