Hi, Peter: Thanks for your comments. 1. For BGP-LS deployment, there normally only be one router that within the IGP domain to report the topology information, this router should know such passive links which exists mainly on other border routers via the IGP protocol. This is main reason to extension the IGP protocol. 2. For the solution, normally, the link within the IGP connect two ends, but passive interface is special and not fall in this space. We have studied the current TLVs that for link, and find no suitable container to append this information. This is the reason that we select the TLVs that associated with Prefix.
>From other POV, the OSPFv3 defines now the "Intra-Area-Prefix LSA", which isolate the prefix information that associated with link into this container, contains the stub link, local interface information etc. Put such attribute along with the prefix is then acceptable? Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Psenak Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 4:29 PM To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lsr] FW: New Version Notification for draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt Hi Aijun, here's my comments: The purpose of this draft is to advertise passive links. 1. I'm not sure the problem needs to be solved by IGPs. I tend to believe ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext is sufficient. 2. the solution that you proposed is wrong. You are trying to derive topological data about the passive links from the prefix advertisement. This is semantically incorrect and only works under very specific condition. If you need to advertise a link, advertise it as a "special" link, not as a "special" prefix. thanks, Peter On 29/09/2020 03:17, Aijun Wang wrote: > Hi, Peter: > > Would you like to review and give comments on the updates version of this draft? > We have also added the protocol extension proposal for OSPFv3. > > The update version of this draft can refer to > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface > -attribute > Thanks in advance. > > > Best Regards > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 3:17 PM >> To: Zhibo Hu <[email protected]>; Gyan Mishra >> <[email protected]>; Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; >> Gyan S. Mishra <[email protected]> >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt >> >> >> A new version of I-D, >> draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Aijun Wang and posted to the IETF >> repository. >> >> Name: draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute >> Revision: 04 >> Title: Passive Interface Attribute >> Document date: 2020-09-28 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Pages: 7 >> URL: >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribute-04. >> txt >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-att >> r >> ibute/ >> Htmlized: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interfac >> e >> -attribut >> e >> Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-attribut >> e >> -04 >> Diff: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wang-lsr-passive-interface-at >> t >> ribute-04 >> >> Abstract: >> This document describes the mechanism that can be used to >> differentiate the passive interfaces from the normal interfaces >> within ISIS or OSPF domain. >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> > > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
