Aijun,
please see inline:
On 06/11/2023 13:23, Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, all:
Here are some technical questions for the hurry adopted draft about
unreachable prefixes announcement:
1) There exists already “prefix originator” sub-TLV to indicate the
associated prefix is unreachable, what’s the advantage of using other
undefined, to-be-standardized, to-be-implemented sub-TLV?
many people have already commented on why overloading the “prefix
originator” sub-TLV to signal unreachability is a bad idea. Please
accept that feedback.
2) It is unnecessary to define the “UP” flag——if the operator know the
unreachable event in advance, they can also schedule the switchover of
the related services in advance. Why bother IGP to transfer such
information?
looks like there are folks that see the value in it. I let them to
comment more, but I don't necessarily see a problem in an extra bit. If
you don't like it, don't use it.
3) There is very limited usage of LS_Infinity in current network. From
the operator’s viewpoint, we will decrease its usage also in future.
Then the solution should try their best to avoid their usages——Current
solutions instead enhance its usage——It is unacceptable. Let’s keep
the network simple.
the reasons for using the LSInfinity for unreachability has been
discussed at great length a;ready. It's the backward compatibility for
routers not supporting the new signalling - we need to avoid them
interpreting the unreachability as reachability.
4) We can’t ignore the partitions scenarios or let’s it go.
if you feel like the partition is the problem, you can write a separate
draft and address it there. We are NOT trying to solve it with UPA
draft. And for a reason.
5) There should be some mechanisms to control the volume of advertised
unreachable information, when compared with reachable information, as
done in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-12#section-6.
please look at the section 6 of the UPA draft.
thanks,
Peter
Please consider the above technical issues carefully before evaluating
and adopted any proposal.
If the above issues can’t be solved, we request the WG to adopt also
the
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/,which
cover and solve all of the above issues.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
