Re: [Idr] comments on draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd

That's the quote from John's mail on this topic:

"One observation regarding the "RR won't scale if it has to do per-client
route selection" concern -- it seems to me it would be entirely feasible
for an implementation to associate some figure-of-merit with each next hop,
a function of its reported reachability by each of its indirect peers. That
figure-of-merit could be used during traditional (not per-client) route
selection. The general idea would be "if one other client can't reach you,
that's their problem, if dozens of other clients can't reach you, maybe we
should choose a different next hop if we've got one" [*]. Think of it as
making the binary resolvability condition of RFC 4271 9.1.2.1 fuzzy.

I think specifying the function would be beyond the scope of this (or
really, any) draft since it's "just policy". But it demonstrates there's
some potential benefit from the proposal without going all the way down to
per-client route selection."

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:50:27PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > Not quite ... Nick is correct - next hop reachability are global in RS.
>
> This would be a possible but fairly silly implementation choice.
>
> The whole point is that reachability issues on a too-large fabric are
> not universal - otherwise, the RS would lose reachability to the client
> in question as well, and the whole point would be moot.
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>