Speaking as a WG member: Hi Gyan,
The first question is how do you know which prefixes within the summary range to protect? Are these configured? Is this half-assed best-effort protection where you protect prefixes within the range that you’ve installed recently? Just how does this work? It is clearly not specified in the draft. The second comment is that using the prefix-originator TLV is a terrible choice of encoding. Note that if there is any router in the domain that doesn’t support the extension, you’ll actually attract traffic towards the ABR blackholing it. Further, I think your example is a bit contrived. I’d hope that an OSPF area with “thousands” of summarized PE addresses wouldn’t be portioned by a single failure as in figure 1 in the draft and your slides. I also that the option of a backbone tunnel between the ABRs was removed from the draft since it diminished the requirement for this functionality. Thanks, Acee From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 at 6:57 PM To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com>, Aijun Wang <wang...@chinatelecom.cn>, draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement <draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucem...@ietf.org>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org> Subject: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-05 Acee. Please ask the two questions you raised about the PUA draft so we can address your concerns. If anyone else has any other outstanding questions or concerns we would like to address as well and resolve. Once all questions and concerns are satisfied we would like to ask for WG adoption. Kind Regards Gyan -- [Image removed by sender.]<http://www.verizon.com/> Gyan Mishra Network Solutions Architect M 301 502-1347 13101 Columbia Pike Silver Spring, MD
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
