Hi all, draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce mentions BGP PIC edge as one the use cases for UPA in the presence of summarization. However, it is not quite clear whether UPA is expected to trigger BGP best path calculation at the ingress PE (in addition to triggering BGP PIC) in spite of the BGP NH (or SRv6 locator as the case may be) being reachable through the summary route in RIB. Or should BGP wait for the service route to be withdrawn (say, by an RR having reachability to the egress PE) before triggering BGP best path?
It looks either case would be problematic in case of a short flap in reachability for the BGP NH as detected by the egress ABR: - If the ingress PE were to run the BGP best path on receiving UPA for the BGP NH, what would be the trigger to run another best path when the BGP NH becomes reachable again soon after, for reverting the traffic to the original NH? This is unlike using MH-BFD to detect the BGP NH reachability which can indicate both down/up. UPA on the other hand indicates only a down. - If the ingress PE were to rely on the service routes to be withdrawn/re-advertised, then what about scenarios where the BGP session is directly b/w the ingress and egress PEs? Is UPA not expected to be deployed in such scenarios? There was a discussion earlier about the UP flag in the UPA advertisement triggering BGP best path: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/_qhlHBjQ8H-bLXtA6Nn4J7musjc/ Is this applicable also to the U flag? I think it is difficult to realize the use case for UPA in an interoperable way without this clarity.. Regards, Muthu
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
