Robert,
On 26/11/2021 17:18, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Peter,
Technically I see no justification to run any service within your own
domian over IPSec.
tell people that are doing so, not me.
In those cases simple IP encapsulation works fine.
So let's zoom on this scenario ... Your PEs communicate over IP
encapsulation which does not require any connection establishment.
it's tunneling and there can be L3 or L2 client traffic being sent over
these tunnels. Having a fast tunnel end-pointy down notification
(without the need to run multi-hop BFD) helps the overlay network
convergence. Same as with BGP.
Just accept the fact that other overlay protocols exists out there and
are actively being used. If you are not willing to accept tt, no point
discussing further.
thanks,
Peter
They start to exchange packets using summary routes.
PE1 goes down and PULSE reaches remote PE2 - then what exactly is to
happen there ?
In RIB you still have valid summary route. You do not have in RIB /32
for remote PE1. PULSE comes and what ?
If you run BGP it could trigger next hop invalidation and best path
re-run. But there is no BGP as you say.
Depending on how you implement encapsulation you could remove such encap
rewrite from FIB, but for how long ? And what will tell you that the
remote PE is up again ?
All in all for PULSE to directly affect the data plane I think lot's of
new code needs to be written, tested and deployed. Leave alone aspect of
network wide flooding of those PULSEs.
Many thx,
R.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 4:38 PM Peter Psenak <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Robert,
On 26/11/2021 15:06, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Peter,
>
> again, if you use option 2. There are way too many networks
without it.
>
>
> There is even more networks without PUA/PULSE today. Should that
be a
> factor ?
the solution should not depend on any particular deployment of the
overlay protocol.
>
> In summary, we need something that works independent of the
BGP design
> and also works outside of BGP.
>
>
> Really ? Is that the requirement that the solution provided MUST
not use
> BGP ?
for me the solution ideally should work for with any overlay protocol.
>
> Please kindly describe a full practical deployment scenario where
PULSE
> helps when BGP is not used at all in the network for distributing
> service reachability.
I have explained that several times to you. There are SP networks
running the services on top of p2p IP sec tunnels for example, with
no BGP.
>
> OSPF and ISIS are *link state* protocols. You are asking to
extend them
> to carry *node state* now. Specifically just to carry the UP -> DOWN
> transitions of a node state and moreover in an ephemeral fashion.
no, I'm only talking about the prefix unrechability. Something that
link
state protocols advertise happily today.
thanks,
Peter
>
> Thx,
> R,
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
