IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Mon, 07 September 2020 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE473A08C6 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 02:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LSO8GUuRtRcl for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 02:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m127101.qiye.163.com (mail-m127101.qiye.163.com [115.236.127.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D4253A0A4A for <lsr@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 02:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by mail-m127101.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 22A1B432B9; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 17:31:42 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: 'Robert Raszuk' <robert@raszuk.net>
Cc: "'Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)'" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, 'Gyan Mishra' <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, 'Peter Psenak' <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, 'Huzhibo' <huzhibo@huawei.com>, 'Aijun Wang' <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>, 'lsr' <lsr@ietf.org>, "'Acee Lindem (acee)'" <acee@cisco.com>, 'Xiaoyaqun' <xiaoyaqun@huawei.com>, 'Tony Przygienda' <tonysietf@gmail.com>
References: <CAOj+MMGgpcnRMnPxQqcZofgJNH67QYUQOxWsTU5Xp-Km0D2DDg@mail.gmail.com> <A202F6E1-AD83-46E8-A1D2-E156FB35DF57@chinatelecom.cn> <CAOj+MMHd1WZNCWr6KihxzDf=G53A8FBUBbqHpZGNwvF4hsuzMA@mail.gmail.com> <059e01d66ad7$ffda2e50$ff8e8af0$@tsinghua.org.cn> <CABNhwV2oXBBNKOdUA59sLF+b5srWHi3KF2Q6H1Tg-dK+gA9Lgw@mail.gmail.com> <013301d679f6$92da3ce0$b88eb6a0$@tsinghua.org.cn> <CA+wi2hM1H6Vr5U_1fTVkPi5aQLrFTeRhD5Q8Be2T+wf0e1h+QA@mail.gmail.com> <BY5PR11MB4337214640926A190A8D620FC12D0@BY5PR11MB4337.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <8838525B-EB2D-4B40-956A-1F0D5EA56D32@cisco.com> <CABNhwV26_doVEPTexHUhgAJNjdAF1JwCAHxf4H1+QzKCGLyP9g@mail.gmail.com> <00dd01d684c9$2d1ff3d0$875fdb70$@tsinghua.org.cn> <CAOj+MMHVv2DS0=F0YKso7r=DQ=s2-mMhmrYTraXt51D-+5p9bQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOj+MMHVv2DS0=F0YKso7r=DQ=s2-mMhmrYTraXt51D-+5p9bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 17:31:41 +0800
Message-ID: <011301d684f9$b22dafb0$16890f10$@tsinghua.org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0114_01D6853C.C0518BF0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: zh-cn
Thread-Index: AQKwsgRl8uq4ZZAYYiwm8gqgwsmPuwLfhjxOAXwBCl8B/jVB7AHXWAwnAU+85ywCK6kboAKkbAgoAYwlr7oClVsLogGF6cZPAjiYMKSm9wUP0A==
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUpXWQgYFAkeWUFZS1VLWVdZKFlBSkxLS0o3V1ktWUFJV1 kPCRoVCBIfWUFZShoaSUhPQktNTksfVkpOQkJPTEpKS0lOQ09VEwETFhoSFyQUDg9ZV1kWGg8SFR 0UWUFZT0tIVUpKS09ISFVKS0tZBg++
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6MRQ6HCo6UT8hPBgNP1EhCzMQ LEkaCUNVSlVKTkJCT0xKSktISkpIVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxOWVdZCAFZQUpNT0hINwY+
X-HM-Tid: 0a7467e82a169865kuuu22a1b432b9
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/-lF-uMhjXDSW0nFRTNuI6WEagHg>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 09:31:51 -0000

Hi, Robert:

For BGP next-hop tracking, it will help when the BGP next-hop is unreachable. But in our situation, the BGP next-hop is reachable, but should pass another ABR.

Then, in such situation, the mechanism of BGP next-hop tracking will not take effect?

And thanks for your draft information, maybe we can refer to it later J

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

 

From: lsr-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 4:54 PM
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>; Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>; Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; Huzhibo <huzhibo@huawei.com>; Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>; Xiaoyaqun <xiaoyaqun@huawei.com>; Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-03.txt

 

Hi Aijun,

[WAJ] If necessary, we can advertise the MAX_T_PUA(configurable time for the hold of PUA information on the nodes) among the area.

If one node connect to the network after the disappearance of the PUA destination,  there will be no services can be established/run on these failure node/link prefix. 

It’s the same as the beginning, as not all of the prefixes can be reachable within the summary address.

 

>From my pov the only advantage of negative routes in IGP would be to very quickly invalidate service routes (within the IGP domain) typically carried by BGP. 

 

When this is accomplished the PUA can indeed time out with no harm. 

 

Said this - now considering tools like next hop tracking which can trigger withdraw or aggregated withdraw(*) proposal in src area I am  really curious how much (if anything) we would be gaining here. 

 

(*) The original proposal for this was written over 15 years ago: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raszuk-aggr-withdraw-00  We could extend it with next hop which would be the same as IGP PUA prefix. 

 

Kind regards,
Robert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email