Cogent analysis of the situation Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 27, 2022, at 6:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: [External Email. Be cautious of content] (Preamble: All of what I am going to say I have said many times before – on the list – off the list – in private conversations – in WG meetings… I don’t say this to start a discussion with the WG authors – it seems clear that we don’t agree and have no path to agreement. My purpose in saying this is to respond to the ongoing existence of this draft and offering my opinion as to what action the WG should take.) The mechanism defined in this draft is broken. Not only is it not backwards compatible – the PUA advertisements will be misinterpreted to mean the exact opposite of what is intended i.e., the intent is to signal that a prefix is unreachable, but you do so by using an advertisement which legacy nodes MUST interpret as meaning reachable. This is simply broken and should not be done. The authors deserve credit for bringing the attention of the WG to the problem space – but the solution offered is not deployable. Given the long period of time during which this draft has been published and the many times it has been presented/discussed in the WG I think it is now time to say thank you to the authors for their work, but the WG is not interested in adopting this draft. Les From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 1:36 AM To: draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucem...@ietf.org Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org> Subject: [Lsr] Comments on draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement Hello Authors, I am sharing some comments on the latest version of this document since we seem to have a packed agenda in LSR this time. 1) I notice that in the latest update of the draft, there is a big change to start using LSInfinity for indicating prefix unreachability (similar to draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce). I see this as a sign of a degree of convergence between the two drafts. 2) However, I then question the motivation of the authors to continue with the bad design of overloading Prefix Originator and the added capability stuff on top. I don't wish to repeat why that design was an absolute NO-GO for me and I am glad to see the authors acknowledge the problem with misrouting by implementations not supporting this specification. So I don't see the point of still retaining all that. Thanks, Ketan _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!BOlSdK7Bi4AiMHOkDAkQiJpIOJfYNcj0qrpU2SCoNERRIGtQSK7WvmUsq1G2qQWfkMk71PBRPJXzRZFS0M9DoNqIeHOMS_U$
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
