When the PUA use cases were presented today in the LSR meeting, I made the comment that the RIB interactions for each use case would be different and needed to be specified. Thanks, Acee
From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Date: Monday, November 16, 2020 at 3:25 AM To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]> Cc: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>, lsr <[email protected]>, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] Prefix Unreachable Announcement Use Cases I was not bringing RIFT's negative routies example as something inherently negative. I was just pointing it out to illustrate that today's data plane lookup does not really support "if does not match" checks. [WAJ] In data plane, the device do still the “match” check, not “does not match” check. When the router receives the PUA information, it will install one black hole route for a short time. So your idea is that you install route for unreachable prefix to /dev/null ? And how would that help connectivity restoration ? Moreover it seems that it will just also prevent any local protection to locally bypass the failed destination. Bottom line is that I agree with one problem statement. However IMHO described actions upon reception of PUA are questionable at best. Cheers, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
