Bruno,
On 06/01/2022 11:18, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Peter,
From: Peter Psenak
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 11:03 AM
Bruno,
On 06/01/2022 10:40, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Peter,
Thanks for your answer.
Please see inline [Bruno]
From: Peter Psenak
Sent: Thursday, Janu
Hello,
I read this document and have two basic questions.
1. The advertisement of inter-AS TE LSA in OSPFV2/V3 itself indicates that the
link is outside IGP domain.
This information is good enough to apply special treatment to these
links.
Why is it necessary to advertise addition
Hi Everyone,
I read the draft and support its adoption.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: Lsr on behalf of Christian Hopps
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 1:58 AM
To: lsr@ietf.org
Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org ; lsr-...@ietf.org
; cho...@chopps.org ;
draft-wang-lsr-st
As Co-Author of Area proxy from an operators POV I would be supportive of
applicability draft work as a means to end end to progress both drafts.
Kind Regards
Gyan
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 2:21 PM Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
> I’d very much support applicability draft work!
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
> On Ja
Hi Bruno
As far as BGP PIC (edge) it is completely orthogonal to summarization
framework the PUA/PULSE solutions is addressing.
Let’s say for example you have ingress area A and egress area B and both
have summaries of the other area. So all LPM longer matches for ingress
area A exist within ing
The way I read this is that other applications could use the generic IGP pulse
mechanism as opposed to other applications using the route unreachable signals
conveyed using the IGP pulse mechanism.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Lsr on behalf of Robert Raszuk
Date: Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 6:54 AM
To:
Apologies ... want to correct myself for clarity:
was: "active and backup paths all going to the next hop X"
should be: "active paths all going to the next hop X and backup paths going
to different next hops"
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:31 PM Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Peter,
>
> So far you and ot
Peter,
So far you and others have been saying all along that one of the
applications which uses PULSE can be BGP.
If so I am afraid this is not PIC (== Prefix *Independent *Convergence)
anymore. And I think this was Bruno's valid point.
Today BGP registers with RIB next hops for tracking, When n
Peter,
> From: Peter Psenak
> Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 11:03 AM
>
> Bruno,
>
> On 06/01/2022 10:40, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > Thanks for your answer.
> > Please see inline [Bruno]
> >
> >
> >> From: Peter Psenak
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 10:25 AM
> >
Bruno,
On 06/01/2022 10:40, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Peter,
Thanks for your answer.
Please see inline [Bruno]
From: Peter Psenak
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 10:25 AM
Bruno,
the PIC is used unchanged with PULSE.
[Bruno] OK. Therefore, from a FIB standpoint, does this mean tha
Peter,
Thanks for your answer.
Please see inline [Bruno]
> From: Peter Psenak
> Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 10:25 AM
>
> Bruno,
>
> the PIC is used unchanged with PULSE.
[Bruno] OK. Therefore, from a FIB standpoint, does this mean that the scaling
properties are also unchanged compared
Greg,
On 05/01/2022 18:39, Greg Mirsky wrote:
Hi Aijun,
thank you for pointing that out. I agree that in some deployment
scenarios, only a subset of PEs will be required to be monitored by an
ABR. But, as I look at the problem, the general use case should be the
worst case scenario, i.e., all
Bruno,
the PIC is used unchanged with PULSE.
The only difference is that the PIC is triggered by the pulse arrival,
instead of the IGP route removal. We have made a prototype of it and it
works fine.
thanks,
Peter
On 06/01/2022 09:09, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Gyan,
You are refe
Hi Gyan,
You are referring to both summarization and BGP PIC (edge).
BGP PIC is quite old story, but if my memory serve me well, BGP PIC edge relies
on the presence of the specific (/32) prefix information in the FIB. Hence it’s
not clear to me how you can have both prefix summarization and BGP
14 matches
Mail list logo