Les, > 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. > > [LES2:] It is reasonable to limit the rate of pulses sent. Peter has already > indicated in an earlier reply that we will address that in a future version > of the event-notification draft. So, good point – and we are in agreement > regarding mass failure.
The fact that you have to limit the result is a pretty clear indication that this is not architecturally appropriate. > 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. > [LES2:] Conceptually this works. But I don’t think it scales. How so? Doesn’t this correspond 1:1 with overlay BGP sessions? > 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. > > [LES:] This would be a significant effort to provide such a service. > Granted, implementation of “pulse” is also a significant effort – so I am not > objecting to your idea simply based on that. I am just pointing out that what > you propose does not currently exist – so if you are serious about this > alternative you need to provide the details. Fear of hard work does not make it the IGP’s problem. I am not the one with the issue. Those with the issue should propose the details. At most, the IGP should carry a capability for this service. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
