On 03/01/2022 16:21, Christian Hopps wrote:
On Nov 29, 2021, at 7:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
<[email protected]> wrote:
Tony –
Let me try one example – see if it helps.
Summarization is used in the network.
But customer identifies a modest number of key nodes where it wants to detect
loss of reachability ASAP. Unfortunately, customer is unable to assign
addresses which are outside of the summary to these nodes.
I think this does in fact capture the problem trying to be solved here, nicely.
not really.
In fact assigning addresses to the nodes in a way that they are part of
the summary is the right thing to do.
The problem we are trying to solve is to use the summarization but
without the loss of the fast notification of the node down event.
thanks,
Peter
One solution very simple solution that works today is:
- Tell the customer they can't do this, but they *can* modify their addressing
(this is literally what they do for a living) so that they don't have this
problem.
Do we *really* want modify our IGPs (a BIG ask) with some pretty questionable
changes, just to save the operators the trouble of doing their job correctly?
Maybe the answer here is this isn't a good idea, and we should move on...
Thanks,
Chris.
[as wg member]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
