Hello Authors, Sharing some comments upfront on this draft given the packed LSR agenda.
1) There is currently no change in protocol encoding (see also further comment), however, there are protocol procedures at the ABR being specified using normative language. Specifically, the text related to the propagation of UPA across levels/areas/domains. Therefore, I believe that this draft should be moved to the standards track. 2) The document refers to "prefix reachability" in a generic sense. My understanding is that this refers to the "base" prefix reachability in the IGPs - i.e., Extended IP Reachability (TLV 135) and its MT & IPv6 siblings in ISIS, the OSPFv2 Type 3 LSA, and the OSPFv3 Inter-Area Prefix LSA (and its Extended LSA sibling). It would be good to specify these for clarity. 3) I also prefer (like some other WG members) that there is an explicit indication that is carried along with the UPAs. E.g., a UPA flag. This will help in more accurate monitoring and handling of these updates. It will also help differentiate the usual/existing max/infinite metric advertisements that may be triggered for other reasons from a UPA. Thanks, Ketan
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
