On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:42:57AM +0800, Aijun Wang wrote:
[ ... ]
|Option 3: The “DOWN” detection on ABR is same as PUA/PULSE, the different
|is how to propagate such “DOWN” information. Considering we have observed
|that all P/PE router in other areas may be interested such informa
Robert,
On 26/11/2021 19:20, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Pulse cleans up itself without any additional flooding, that's the
whole
idea of it.
That's the most scary and not well understood part of it. Ghosts !
Appears and magically disappears.
think of it as LSP with the lifetime of 6
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric-04: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Ple
Hi, Hannes:
-Original Message-
From: Hannes Gredler
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 5:27 PM
To: Aijun Wang
Cc: 'Robert Raszuk' ; 'lsr' ; 'Les Ginsberg
(ginsberg)' ; 'Tony Li' ; 'Shraddha Hegde'
; 'Peter Psenak'
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 09:42:57AM +
Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric-04: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Pleas
Vijay, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this
document.
Lars
> On 2021-11-2, at 15:24, Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review
Hey Peter,
> think of it as LSP with the lifetime of 60 sec. Nothing magical about it.
>
That 60 sec is not long enough.
If folks do not want to quickly detect the failure by iBGP by running BFD
def iBGP holdtime is 180 sec ! So right there if you timeout PULSE after 60
sec the broken best path
Hi Robert,
On 29/11/2021 13:58, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hey Peter,
think of it as LSP with the lifetime of 60 sec. Nothing magical
about it.
That 60 sec is not long enough.
If folks do not want to quickly detect the failure by iBGP by running
BFD def iBGP holdtime is 180 sec ! So right
Hi, Robert:
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Nov 29, 2021, at 20:59, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> Hey Peter,
>
>> think of it as LSP with the lifetime of 60 sec. Nothing magical about it.
>
> That 60 sec is not long enough.
>
> If folks do not want to quickly detect the failure by iBGP by run
Hi Rob,
Seems it would be better to get modeling suggestions earlier in the cycle than
IESG telechat.
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/29/21, 6:05 AM, "Robert Wilton via Datatracker" wrote:
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric-04: No O
Hi Acee,
I don't disagree, but I believe that your comment generally applies to all AD
review comments received during a telechat.
But notwithstanding, when reviewing this draft, and YANG model, I found aspects
of its behaviour potentially unclear that I think could raise
questions/problems to
hi aijun,
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 07:16:18PM +0800, Aijun Wang wrote:
| Hi, Hannes:
|
| -Original Message-
| From: Hannes Gredler
| Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 5:27 PM
| To: Aijun Wang
| Cc: 'Robert Raszuk' ; 'lsr' ; 'Les Ginsberg
(ginsberg)' ; 'Tony Li' ; 'Shraddha Hegde'
; 'Pet
Speaking as WG Chair:
I believe this discussion has gone off track and the details of the BGP
alternatives need to be discussed on the IDR list. For the purposes of the LSR
discussion, Robert believes that this is a problem that needs to be solved but
that it could be better solved using BGP as
Hi Acee,
> Robert believes that this is a problem that needs to be solved but that
it could be better
> solved using BGP as described in
draft-raszuk-idr-yet-another-complex-idr-draft-00.txt.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong...
Indeed you are not correct.
The draft name (if at needed to have a draft
Hannes -
Thanx for bringing a new voice into the discussion.
Please see inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Hannes Gredler
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 1:27 AM
> To: Aijun Wang
> Cc: 'Robert Raszuk' ; 'lsr' ; Les Ginsberg
> (ginsberg) ; 'Tony Li' ; 'Shraddha
> Hegde' ;
Hi Les,
Just to summarize my personal take on this thread in the light of your last
email.
#1 - I am not ok with the ephemeral nature of the advertisements. (I
proposed an alternative).
#2 - I am not ok with spreading the information everywhere including all P
and PE routers which do not need it
s/ 1 days ago you said/ 11 days ago you said/
Apologies,
R.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:53 PM Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Les,
>
> Just to summarize my personal take on this thread in the light of your
> last email.
>
> #1 - I am not ok with the ephemeral nature of the advertisements. (I
> propose
Robert –
From: Lsr On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 2:54 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Aijun Wang ; Shraddha Hegde
; Tony Li ; Hannes Gredler
; lsr ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
s/ 1 days ago you said/ 11 days ago you said/
[LE
Hi Les,
Great, we are finally getting some focus !
Stating as an open question to use IGP or not for signalling PE
disappearance seems to me not proper in light of the facts that IGP can do
it already today by leaking.
IMO we are debating two proposals - both ephemeral - both introducing even
mo
Les,
Thank you for clearly articulating your understanding. One more time, with
feeling:
> [LES:] I am not convinced either side can claim "consensus" in this
> discussion. That is a work in progress. 😊
We concur on this point. :)
> However, when you say IGPs are (exclusively?) for topo
Hi Tony,
> It is OK for IGPs to advertise multiple summaries (e.g., multiple /24s
> instead of a single /16).
> It is even OK for IGPs to advertise some prefixes covered by a summary
> along with the summary (don’t know if any implementations do this - but
> they could).
> None of this is an "arc
Hi Greg,
/* Changing the subject as the other thread just tried to re-focus on IGP
*/
/* Keeping lsr WG cc-ed just as FYI */
>From my OAM PoV, the most reliable option is, as you've pointed out, to run
> BFD over EVPN underlay between PEs.
>
If BFD would have autodiscovery built in, that would i
Hi Robert,
great idea to spawn the new discussion thread, thank you!
Please find my notes in-lined below under the GIM>> tag.
Regards,
Greg
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 4:08 PM Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> /* Changing the subject as the other thread just tried to re-focus on IGP
> */
> /* Ke
Hi Greg,
If BFD would have autodiscovery built in, that would indeed be the ultimate
>> solution. Of course folks will worry about scaling and number of BFD
>> sessions to be run PE-PE.
>>
> GIM>> I sense that it is not "BFD autodiscovery" but an advertisement of
> BFD multi-hop system readiness t
Tony –
Let me try one example – see if it helps.
Summarization is used in the network.
But customer identifies a modest number of key nodes where it wants to detect
loss of reachability ASAP. Unfortunately, customer is unable to assign
addresses which are outside of the summary to these nodes.
Robert
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 7:35 PM Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> If BFD would have autodiscovery built in, that would indeed be the
>>> ultimate solution. Of course folks will worry about scaling and number of
>>> BFD sessions to be run PE-PE.
>>>
>> GIM>> I sense that it is not "BFD a
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 7:44 PM Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
> Robert
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 7:35 PM Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> If BFD would have autodiscovery built in, that would indeed be the
ultimate solution. Of course folks will worry about scaling and number of
BFD se
Robert
**Top posting here**
So as the RR sits in the control plane completely disjoint from the
forwarding plane, as far as a BGP base solution detection of liveliness PE
down detection, this will yield false positive or negative and thus I
don’t think is a viable alternative to IGP based soluti
>From the discussion, I think we can get the conclusion that BFD based
>detection for the mentioned problem is not reliable (between PE/RR) and
>scalable(among PEs).
Then also the BGP based solution.
So let’s focus how to implement it within the IGP? Thanks Greg’s analysis.
And one supplem
Les,
> Summarization is used in the network.
> But customer identifies a modest number of key nodes where it wants to detect
> loss of reachability ASAP. Unfortunately, customer is unable to assign
> addresses which are outside of the summary to these nodes.
> Customer assigns admin tags to th
Hi Aijun,
could you please elaborate on how you see that this discussion leads to the
"BFD based detection for the mentioned problem is not [...] scalable(among
PEs)" conclusion? I hope that there's nothing I've said or suggested lead
you to this conclusion. Personally, I believe that BFD-based PE-
Hi, Greg:
Firstly, regardless of which methods to be used for the multihop BFD approach,
it is certainly the configuration overhead if you image there are 10,000 PEs as
Tony often raised as one example.
Shouldn’t you configure each pair of them to detect the PE-PE connection?
It is obvious
Hi Aijun,
thank you for confirming that it is not the conclusion one can arrive based
on my discussion with Robert. Secondly, the problem you describe, I
wouldn't characterize as a scaling issue with using multi-hop BFD
monitoring path continuity in the underlay network. In my opinion, it is an
ope
Hi Greg
I think the bigger issue not related to use of multi hop BFD and BFD
scalability as that is all done in hardware and most vendors can support
the high number of sessions.
The bigger issue is the viability of using BGP to detect the remote PE down
events and false positive and negative due
Hi Greg
Is there any advantage for operators to run multi hop BFD PE-RR BGP client
versus single hop BFD for IGP P2P clients which is typically done. Also
any issues with running both above simultaneously also any benefit in doing
so.
Many Thanks
Gyan
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 9:47 PM Greg Mirsk
Hi, Greg:
Even the BFD auto-configuration extensions has been standardized and
implemented, won’t the network be filled with the detect packets, instead of
the user packets?
For PUA/PULSE solution, the mentioned LSA will only be emerged when the node
status change from “UP” to “DOWN”, but t
Hi Gyan,
thank you for pointing out the possible confusion I've caused by not being
clear about which option of using the multi-hop BFD I propose to advance
and support with auto-configuration. It is PE-PE, not the PE-RR option
(using Robert's original email). I see the multi-hop BFD between PEs as
Hi Aijun,
what is the guaranteed failure detection time for the IGP-based solution?
Regards,
Greg
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 7:07 PM Aijun Wang
wrote:
> Hi, Greg:
>
>
>
> Even the BFD auto-configuration extensions has been standardized and
> implemented, won’t the network be filled with the detect
Hi, Greg:
I understand that BFD can get the guaranteed failure detection time than other
protocol that depends on the size of the network.
What we want to emphasize is that the balance of deployment/operation overhead
and the efficiency of the proposed solutions.
For your questions, I think
Tony
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 9:09 PM Tony Li wrote:
>
> Les,
>
>
> Summarization is used in the network.
> But customer identifies a modest number of key nodes where it wants to
> detect loss of reachability ASAP. Unfortunately, customer is unable to
> assign addresses which are outside of the s
Hi Aijun,
thank you for clarifying your goal. I have missed asking another question:
What is the required failure detection time?
For example, a 10 ms detection guarantee is required for local protection.
And that results in a 3.3 ms interval between the fault detection packets
(e.g., CCM or BFD)
Tony
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:02 PM Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
> Tony
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 9:09 PM Tony Li wrote:
>
>>
>> Les,
>>
>>
>> Summarization is used in the network.
>> But customer identifies a modest number of key nodes where it wants to
>> detect loss of reachability ASAP. Unfortu
Tony –
I am not convinced we are going to converge.
Note that my goal/expectation is not that one of us convinces the other as to
what is “best”. It is simply to get a clearer understanding regarding our
points of disagreement. But I am now less optimistic about that being
achievable.
Still, a
Hi, Greg:
I agree with you that BFD has good performance than other failure detection
mechanism, but we should also consider the scalability of the solutions.
And, can the 10ms be guaranteed for multi-hop BFD in any network? I think there
is also the number of BFD sessions limit on each devi
Hi, Tony:
I agree with Les, that PUA/PULSE is one kind of tools to address the scaling
issue.
One responses for your following comments:
“You’re propagating new information out of the area. And doing so at the wrong
time. I would MUCH rather just leak the prefixes when things are workin
45 matches
Mail list logo
