Hi Aijun,
thanks for your interest in the UPA draft.
I'm not sure what exactly is there in your draft that you would like to
merge. The mechanism that we use in the UPA draft is an existing
mechanism and it avoids the the problems that have been discussed in
context of your draft in the past completely.
thanks,
Peter
On 07/06/2022 08:59, Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, Authors of UPA(Unreachable Prefixes Announcement) draft:
After reading your newly proposed draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/>,
we found that the overall aim and procedures in your draft are getting
closer again to the already intensely discussed PUA/PUAM
solutions(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-09
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-09>).
Regardless to the difference of the two proposals, here we propose to
converge the solutions, based on the PUA/PUAM draft, as we all know the
WG has discussed PUA/PUAM draft about two years, there is no reason to
discuss again the similar procedures and the later work should respect
the former’s efforts.
If you agree, we can discuss the details of convergence offline. If you
don’t agree, we can discuss these solutions openly within the WG list.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
