On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 10:55:38AM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of David Lamparter > > I'd rather not do that and just add > > a sub-TLV for it. > > I'm fine to use max_prefix as per RFC 5305 (prefix not considered > during SPF) as this allow for incremental deployment. > But in my opinion, advertising the unreachability semantic requires an > additional explicit signaling. (I'm proposing a prefix flag, but that > seem like a detail at this point)
ACK (I was a bit muddy writing "sub-TLV", really meant just some type of added explicit signal inside the max_prefix reachability.) -David _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
