Hi, Peter: Here I want to ask you one question: If the specified detailed prefix doesn’t exist in the receiver’s route table, what the receiver will do when it receives the UPA information of this specified prefix?
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Jun 10, 2022, at 23:16, Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: > > Aijun, > >> On 08/06/2022 13:22, Aijun Wang wrote: >> Hi, Peter: >> “MAX-Value” metric just indicates the associated prefix will be removed if >> it is installed previously, as the same function of premature aging. >> If the prefix doesn’t exist previously on the receiving router, it will do >> nothing when it receives such “MAX-Value” metric advertisements. >> Thus, it can avoid the misbehavior when receiving the unrecognized TLV that >> indicates explicitly the unreachable information, but itself only can’t be >> used to trigger the switchover of overlay service on the mentioned >> prefix(such LSA will be passed immediately, as described in RFC2328). > > sorry, I don't understand the above. Advertising a prefix with LSInfinity > will cause the prefix to become unreachable. > > >> In summary, UPA just told the receiver the detailed prefix is missed(but may >> still be reached via the summary address),but not the prefix is unreachable. > > and why is that a problem? > >> Combine current two information together can declare clearly the detailed >> prefix is unreachable and unsupported router will not have any misbehavior >> when they don’t understand the PUA information. > > things as described in UPA draft are sufficient to make prefix unreachable. > There will be no misbehavior, as we are using existing mechanism to do so. > > thanks, > Peter > >> And, when all the routers be upgraded(which are all necessary for both >> proposals) to support the PUA information , the UPA information can be >> omitted. >> Aijun Wang >> China Telecom >>>> On Jun 7, 2022, at 23:59, Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Aijun, >>> >>>> On 07/06/2022 17:31, Aijun Wang wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> there is no need to introduce any new encoding. That the whole point of the >>> UPA draft. We use existing mechanism. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>> >>>> 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
