< changing subject so as not to hijack the ongoing WG adoption poll thread >
Hi Aijun, One only needs to search the LSR WG archives for the discussions, comments and feedback given on draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement by many participants (including me) over the past many years to understand the problems with the solution in draft-wang. Checking the diffs across the 13 versions illustrate the history and evolution. I am unable to explain in ways other than what has been already done in the past threads. Thanks, Ketan On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:33 PM Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Ketan: > > Which part in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/ > is > not workable? > > I want to remind you again that it is the above draft initiates the > problem first, insists that the explicit signaling was the direction, > covers more scenarios that draft-ppsenak lacks still > > So, what’s the reason to adopt the follower, sub-optimal solution? > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > On Aug 28, 2023, at 20:20, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
