Hi Peter, > yes, but it's not specific to flat areas. Even in multi-area deployments the > host routing is mandated by MPLS. In these multi-area deployments the host > routes are sent everywhere, updates are triggered regardless of the failure > type. IGPs are effectively providing liveness service between PEs in any MPLS > network.
Please re-read what you just wrote. The fact that someone decided to leak host routes is NOT something that the IGP was designed to do. Leaking negative updates is also wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The fact that it is effectively providing liveness is wholly irrelevant. It’s still the wrong thing to do. > If IGPs can provide full liveness service between PEs today, why doing > 'optimized negative liveness service' would be architecturally wrong? IGPs could also deliver web pages. Capability doesn’t imply that it’s architecturally appropriate. The IGP is supposed to provide reachability and path computation at local scale and with stability. That’s it. One might well argue that we’re not doing that very well yet. Maybe we should stick to our knitting. T
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
