Robert - From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 2:56 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> Cc: Tony Li <[email protected]>; Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <[email protected]>; Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]>; Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; Hannes Gredler <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] BGP vs PUA/PULSE
Les, We have received requests from real customers who both need to summarize AND would like better response time to loss of reachability to individual nodes. We all agree the request is legitimate. [LES:] It does not seem to me that everyone does agree on that – but I appreciate that you agree. But do they realize that to practically employ what you are proposing (new PDU flooding) requires 100% software upgrade to all IGP nodes in the entire network ? Do they also realize that to effectively use it requires data plane change (sure software but data plane code is not as simple as PI) on all ingress PEs ? [LES:] As far as forwarding, as Peter has indicated, we have a POC and it works fine. And there are many possible ways for implementations to go. It may or may not require 100% software upgrade – but I agree a significant number of nodes have to be upgraded to at least support pulse flooding. And with scale requirements you are describing it seems this would be 1000s of nodes (if not more). That's massive if compared to alternative approaches to achieve the same or even better results. [LES:] Be happy to review other solutions if/when someone writes them up. I think what is overlooked in the discussion of other solutions is that reachability info is provided by the IGP. If all the IGP advertises is a summary then how would individual loss of reachability become known at scale? You seem focused on the notification delivery mechanism only. Les Many thx, Robert
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
