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

Reply via email to