Hi, Peter: The differences between our proposals are just how to indicate the PUA/UPA information along with the advertised prefixes. All other mechanisms/procedures are the same, right?
Then one simple way for the convergence is just the encoding: Let the unreachable prefixes associated with “prefix originator”(with the value set to NULL”) and also set its metrics to MAX-Value. Other parts can follow the current PUA drafts, which we have discussed intensively in the list and I think you have no any objections. Anyway, to make the UPA mechanism take effect, you will also require the router be upgraded. And the “Max-Value” solution doesn’t necessarily indicate the prefix is lost. We should announce such information explicitly. We can also discuss other convergence solutions. Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Jun 7, 2022, at 20:34, Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
