Re: [Idr] draft-uttaro-idr-bgp-persistence-00

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Bruno,

> The low chance / probability of the failure of both RR planes is indeed
> a good point. I can also agree that this is expected to be low. I
> disagree that it never happens. E.g. with current BGP error handling,
> the same BGP attribute in "error" would cause both iBGP plane to go
> down. Hopefully work is being done to improve this. But I would not bet
> that this will cover all future cases.

If trigger is due to malformed update why are we so concerned about RRs? 
Wouldn't equally susceptible be also PEs/ASBRs ?

And the cure that those is GR, not persistence ;).

> In such catastrophic cases, some routing is better than no routing.

I don't know about that.

> On a side note, considering that the RR and hence their failure are
> independent and therefore will quite never fail at the same time, is
> questionable. To start with, they process they mostly process the same
> input (BGP updates) and are part of the same network.

I don't think I used the term "never". But with dual or triple vendor 
control plane the probability of RR network wide outage drops 
significantly lower.

Cheers,
R.