[Lsr] 答复: Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name)
Hi, Acee: Please read carefully the description in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-00#section-3: "In another situation, assume the BGP session is built between Node S2 and T2, via Ps2 and Pt2 respectively. If Node S2 within area 1 become unreachable, the unreachable information can't be advertised to Node T2 because the summary behaviour on border router R1/R3. The BGP session between S1 and T2 will be kept until the BGP keepalive timeout or other detection mechanism takes effect. During this period, the BGP traffic to Node S2 will be in black hole." Considering the usage of "infinite metric", version 00 of the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-00 took the implicit signaling approach, it wants to redefine the meaning of "infinite metric". Only after the intense discussions, it switched to the explicit signaling approach(version 02, March 2023), which is the direction that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/ took from the beginning(version 00, October, 2019). >From the above foundation information, I would like to hear why you can't >admit that draft >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/ > is the first document that provide the problem and the explicit signaling >mechanism. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -邮件原件- 发件人: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2023年8月24日 23:46 收件人: Aijun Wang 抄送: lsr ; draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name) Speaking as WG member: > On Aug 24, 2023, at 04:59, Aijun Wang wrote: > > Object its adoption. > > The reasons are the followings: > 1) It is not the initial draft to describe the problem and provide the > solution. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/ > 2) The problem and the explicit signaling mechanism is firstly provided by in > its 00 version(October,2019), far earlier than the current proposal and its > 00 version(March, 2022). Let me help you refresh your memory - the -00 version of this draft solved a completely different problem. The unreachability signaling to other applications (e.g., BGP PIC) was only added after publication of the draft under adoption. Over revisions, other aspects of the draft under adoption were also appropriated (e.g., using infinite metrics). So, your claims of being “first" are unfounded. Let’s stick to the technical differences between the drafts. Thanks, Acee > 3) Even after the proposed draft adopt the explicit signaling mechanism, it > still lacks other mechanisms that can cover more prefixes unreachable > scenarios, as stated in the > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/ > > The LSR WG should consider to adopt the more comprehensive and simple > solution, not the partial and complex design. > > Best Regards > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > > -邮件原件- > 发件人: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem > 发送时间: 2023年8月24日 4:07 > 收件人: lsr > 抄送: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org > 主题: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - > draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name) > > 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
Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name)
Hi Hannes, > On Aug 24, 2023, at 6:16 AM, Hannes Gredler 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 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
Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name)
Speaking as WG member: > On Aug 24, 2023, at 04:59, Aijun Wang wrote: > > Object its adoption. > > The reasons are the followings: > 1) It is not the initial draft to describe the problem and provide the > solution. > 2) The problem and the explicit signaling mechanism is firstly provided by > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/ > in its 00 version(October,2019), far earlier than the current proposal and > its 00 version(March, 2022). Let me help you refresh your memory - the -00 version of this draft solved a completely different problem. The unreachability signaling to other applications (e.g., BGP PIC) was only added after publication of the draft under adoption. Over revisions, other aspects of the draft under adoption were also appropriated (e.g., using infinite metrics). So, your claims of being “first" are unfounded. Let’s stick to the technical differences between the drafts. Thanks, Acee > 3) Even after the proposed draft adopt the explicit signaling mechanism, it > still lacks other mechanisms that can cover more prefixes unreachable > scenarios, as stated in the > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/ > > The LSR WG should consider to adopt the more comprehensive and simple > solution, not the partial and complex design. > > Best Regards > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > > -邮件原件- > 发件人: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem > 发送时间: 2023年8月24日 4:07 > 收件人: lsr > 抄送: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org > 主题: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - > draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name) > > 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
Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name)
+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 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
[Lsr] 答复: Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name)
Object its adoption. The reasons are the followings: 1) It is not the initial draft to describe the problem and provide the solution. 2) The problem and the explicit signaling mechanism is firstly provided by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/ in its 00 version(October,2019), far earlier than the current proposal and its 00 version(March, 2022). 3) Even after the proposed draft adopt the explicit signaling mechanism, it still lacks other mechanisms that can cover more prefixes unreachable scenarios, as stated in the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/ The LSR WG should consider to adopt the more comprehensive and simple solution, not the partial and complex design. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -邮件原件- 发件人: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem 发送时间: 2023年8月24日 4:07 收件人: lsr 抄送: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org 主题: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name) 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
Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name)
Support, this is a useful solution. -Original Message- From: Acee Lindem Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 10:07 PM To: lsr Cc: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org Subject: Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name) 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
