Hi Robert, I guess you are now fine with the draft with this text.
Thanks, Acee > On Apr 23, 2025, at 10:51 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ok, I'm fine adding some text for your case. > > Thx Peter ! > > It is not "my use case" but ability to trigger UPA for make-before-break > which I think always is rather a good thing. > > Cheers, > R. > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 4:40 PM Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > On 23/04/2025 16:35, Robert Raszuk wrote: >> Hi Peter, >>> If the egress PE is the only BGP NH, then reacting to max-metric or OL-bit >>> set would make some BGP destinations unreachable. >> >> Well this entirely depends on how one reacts on UPA if UPA is signalling the >> only one left BGP path/NH as down irrespective of the trigger. Does it stop >> the service to the destination or not ... >> >> If there are alternate paths the best path can install new next hop. >> >> If there are no alternate paths I would rather keep one installed active - >> for example to address the case where one ABR can still reach egress PE and >> the other one generated UPA. >> >>> So why not trigger UPA in such cases to hint him to switch to alternate >>> next hops if available ? >> I'm not saying it can not be done. The implementation can chose to advertise >> the UPA for the summary component prefix if the such prefix metric in the >> source area/domain crosses certain value or if the prefix originator is >> overloaded. >> But this would make it not compliant with current text in section 4 which >> was the main point of my question. So why not leave the door a bit open for >> it in the spec ? > ok, I'm fine adding some text for your case. > thanks, > Peter > >> >> Thx, >> R. > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
