Hi, Robert:
So the main point here is that yes it is highly recommended to use summaries across areas. But what's not clear (at least to me) is if we really need to signal node liveness in IGP to accomplish the ultimate goal of few sec connectivity restoration upon PE failure in the cases of redundant egress connectivity. [WAJ] I think the goal is same as that we invented the BFD for BGP, or BFD for other protocol. We have discussed several rounds that why we don’t want to reply on BFD for the previous mentioned two categories scenarios. I am perhaps restating the above but trying to look holistically at the problem. [WAJ] Please refer to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-08#section-3, but I think you have known them very well. This is also the start point of our solution. Especially as some folks apparently still believe that "BGP is slow" and that iBGP def timers of 180 sec are even relevant to the topic. They are clearly not. [WAJ] What we are discussing is that the “BGP Peer Status Detection(BGP’s hello timer)” is slow. For tunnel services, there is no timers at all. Many thx, Robert
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
