Speaking as WG member: I support WG adoption. This draft solves the WG agreed upon problem of notification of a prefix being unreachable to other applications without modifying the routing table and with a fully backward compatible mechanism. There is running vendor code and operators who are deploying this solution.
I think that the problem could be solved with OSPF advertisement of individual summary LSAs in the range of PE addresses. However, with IS-IS there is a limited number LSPs that can be advertised and multiple summary prefixes must be advertised in the same LSP. Any time there is an unreachable prefix, the entire monolithic LSP must be re-advertised. Additionally, operators do not want to separate out the PE addresses into a separate address range as they haven’t done the in the past. Thanks, Acee > On Aug 23, 2023, at 15:58, 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
