Hi, Acee:
I think Robert have given the good explaination for the purpose of this draft.
The aim of this draft is to improve the service convergence time, which can be
notified quickly the failure of underlying network link or node.
BFD is another possible solution, but it requires massive
Hi Acee,
> 3.1 *Inter-Area Node Failure Scenario – *With respect to this use case,
the node
> in question is actually unreachable. In this case, the ABRs will normally
install a
> reject route for the advertised summary and will send an ICMP unreachable
when
> the packets are received for the
Speaking as WG member…
With respect to the use cases in section 3:
3.1 Inter-Area Node Failure Scenario – With respect to this use case, the
node in question is actually unreachable. In this case, the ABRs will normally
install a reject route for the advertised summary and will send an ICMP
Zhibo –
It is good of you to “keep me honest” as regards my past comments.
In reviewing the relevant material, the best I can say as regards my comments
from 2 years ago is that they were made with insufficient diligence. Apologies
for any resulting confusion.
Hi Huzhibo,
I would like to highlight another aspect of this draft independent in which
(if any) WG it will end up with.
Many network operators today to interconnect their routers purchase
circuits. However those circuits in vast majority use brilliant technology
of VPWS, L2VPN, EVPN ... you
Hi Les,
Inter-AS E2E sr-policy scenario also need this. The inter-as link info
will be collected by BGP EPE.
The MTU is link’s attribute, so we need independent attribute TLV for
all protools’ link NLRI.
Regards,
Haibo
From: Idr [mailto:idr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff
