Hi Ketan,
On 28/07/2022 02:27, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
Hello Authors,
Sharing some comments upfront on this draft given the packed LSR agenda.
1) There is currently no change in protocol encoding (see also further
comment), however, there are protocol procedures at the ABR being
specified using normative language. Specifically, the text related to
the propagation of UPA across levels/areas/domains. Therefore, I believe
that this draft should be moved to the standards track.
no objection from my side, if the WG decides that way.
2) The document refers to "prefix reachability" in a generic sense. My
understanding is that this refers to the "base" prefix reachability in
the IGPs - i.e., Extended IP Reachability (TLV 135) and its MT & IPv6
siblings in ISIS, the OSPFv2 Type 3 LSA, and the OSPFv3
Inter-Area Prefix LSA (and its Extended LSA sibling). It would be good
to specify these for clarity.
sure, we can clarify.
3) I also prefer (like some other WG members) that there is an explicit
indication that is carried along with the UPAs. E.g., a UPA flag. This
will help in more accurate monitoring and handling of these updates. It
will also help differentiate the usual/existing max/infinite metric
advertisements that may be triggered for other reasons from a UPA.
I'm of opinion that the existing mechanisms are sufficient and the flag
would be redundant.
thanks,
Peter
Thanks,
Ketan
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
