Re: [Lsr] Thoughts about PUAs - are we not over-engineering?

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Peter,

My question is precise .... your answer is pretty loose :)

Imagine I use summarization and as you many times said there is no BGP
running. So how do I indicate planned scheduled maintenance in such cases ?
Say from either ABRs or PEs/Ps itself ?

In fact, looking practically that may be much more useful and needed then
signalling node failures.

And the issue I observed with using UPA is that as it is ephemeral it may
not work well during extended maintenance windows. Stateful solutions
however would work fine.

Thx,
R.







On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 2:34 PM Peter Psenak <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert,
>
> On 15/06/2022 14:13, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> >     the meaning of LSInfinity has been defined decades ago. No matter how
> >
> >     much you may not like it, but it means unreachable.
> >
> >
> > True. But that brings another question ... Do you envision to use UPA
> > also to indicate planned maintenance of a node ?
>
> depends on how the planned maintenance is performed. If yo just turn the
> node off, UPA will catch it. If you instead set OL-bit, or use link max
> metric initially, it may or may not be used, depending on what the
> ABR/ASBR is programmed to do. There is quite some flexibility if needed.
>
> thanks,
> Peter
>
>
> >
> > Thx,
> > R.
> >
>
>