Aijun – I believe there is a fundamental disagreement here which derives from your belief that it is correct/sufficient to describe a link interconnecting two or more nodes using a prefix. This has been discussed on the list for a long time now. It has been pointed out to you that this is a broken model. It does not work for multiple cases (true broadcast links, unnumbered links, point to MP links). Your response to date when this is pointed out to you is either:
“I don’t care about those cases” Or “I don’t think those cases are important.” But I (and others) do not see the value of adopting a model that has limited applicability – especially when we already have a model that is much more robust. Sure – if you think a prefix is enough to define the connection between two nodes, then you can view the identifiers for the neighbor as “unnecessary”. But this is the wrong model. So long as we disagree on this fundamental point, we are never going to agree on anything else and rehashing details is a waste of time for everyone. Les From: Aijun Wang <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 4:10 PM To: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; John E Drake <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes-02 Hi, Robert: Sorry, the correct description should be “For inter-AS stub link, we must generate unnecessary Remote-AS, Remote ASBR Router ID for scenarios that described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-09#section-5.1 For non inter-AS stub link, we must generate Bogus-AS, and Bogus Remote ASBR Router ID” Aijun Wang China Telecom On Jan 15, 2022, at 07:59, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: For the current scenarios and solutions, we have analyzed that RFC 5316 and RFC5392 are not suitable for such purposes—we must generate bogus AS, bogus Remote ASBR Router ID on every inter-AS, or non inter-AS boundary links. Why do you think those values need to be "bogus" ? And Inter-AS is just a perfect example on what you call a "stub link" so I would not hold on that much to the nomenclature. I would like to hear the constructive comments, or other solutions that better the the one in this draft. I think what has been suggested is just that, but of course you are entitled to have your own opinion. Kind regards, Robert
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
