Hi Hannes, > On Aug 24, 2023, at 6:16 AM, Hannes Gredler <han...@gredler.at> wrote: > > +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.
So you don’t see the flags defined explicitly for planned/unplanned unreachability as a dedicated protocol extension? This was added based on WG feedback and perhaps you didn’t reread the most recent version of the draft. Thanks, Acee > > /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
