Thanks Acee for the feedback. We will add more detail to the use cases.
Gyan On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 3:45 AM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee= [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
