+1. Changing the semantics of a 20 year+ deployed protocol is most always a bad idea and for sure will lead into unanticipated side-effects.
FWIW - I do no dispute the usefulness of an "unreachable prefix", but would strongly advocate for a dedicated protocol extension. /hannes On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 02:09:46PM -0700, Tony Li wrote: | | I object. This solution is a poor way of addressing the issues. My reasons have been discussed to death already. | | Tony | | | > On Aug 23, 2023, at 1:07 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: | > | > LSR Working Group, | > | > This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement” - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04. | > Please indicate your support or objection on this list prior to September 7th, 2023. | > | > Thanks, | > Acee | > _______________________________________________ | > Lsr mailing list | > Lsr@ietf.org | > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr | | _______________________________________________ | Lsr mailing list | Lsr@ietf.org | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
