Hi Acee/All, I support the adoption of this document by the WG. Several WG members have been actively involved in the development of this document for over a year now. The authors have included the feedback and as a result the solution has evolved very well.
While there is another document [1] that tries to address the same problem statement, the solution in there is still not workable despite the feedback provided to its authors over the years. We need a workable IGP based solution. Overall, I find that the solution in draft-ppsenak: - is an IGP based solution and therefore in the charter or LSR WG - is a backward compatible solution that does not break existing IGP deployments running older software versions; it allows for incremental deployment/rollout - includes explicit indication of UPA which is more robust and more appropriate semantically Given that the problem scenario is well acknowledged, there is running code for this solution, and we have feedback from operators who are interested in deploying this solution, I believe it is the time for the WG to adopt this document. Thanks, Ketan [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/ On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 1:37 AM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > LSR Working Group, > > This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable Prefix > Announcement” - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04. > Please indicate your support or objection on this list prior to September > 7th, 2023. > > Thanks, > Acee > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
