Les, > Why would we then punch holes in the summary for member routers? Just > because we can? > [LES:] No. We are doing it to improve convergence AND retain scalability.
You are not improving convergence. You are propagating liveness. The fact that this relates to convergence in the overlay is irrelevant to the IGP. You are not retaining scalability. You are damaging it. You are proposing flooding a prefix per router that fails. If there is a mass failure, that would result in flooding a large number of prefixes. The last thing you want when there is a mass failure is additional load, exacerbating the situation. > Should we corrupt the architecture just because we can? There are other, > architecturally appropriate solutions available. How about we just use them? > > [LES:] What are you proposing? You are signaling the (lack of) liveness of a remote node. I propose that we instead use existing signaling mechanisms to do this. Multi-hop BFD seems like an obvious choice. If you greatly dislike that for some reason, I would suggest that we create a proxy liveness service, advertised by the ABR. This would allow correspondents to register for notifications. The ABR could signal these unicast when it determines that the specific targets are unreachable. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
