Changwang - It is very important to note ...
<snip> > > 2. The Draft #1 utilizes the existing mechanisms [RFC7794] and [RFC9084] to > indicate reachability by checking whether the originator information is > > NULL. <end snip> This statement is incorrect. There is no existing mechanism defined in the protocol that states that a prefix reachability advertisement sent with a source router ID == 0 implies unreachability. Please see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7794.html#section-2.2 Existing routers, on receiving a prefix reachability advertisement with a Source Router ID == 0 will interpret that prefix as being reachable - which is exactly the opposite of the intent defined in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-12.txt This is one of the things which is broken in this draft. This fact has been pointed out to the authors many times over the years - but they have consistently ignored it. On the other hand, https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04.txt uses an existing mechanism defined in RFC 5305 to insure that legacy routers who do not understand the new use case or the new flags will ignore the prefix reachability advertisement. This has been verified by testing against multiple implementations. Please be accurate in the statements that you make. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Peter Psenak > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 8:43 AM > To: linchangwang <linchangwang.04...@h3c.com>; Acee Lindem > <acee.i...@gmail.com>; lsr <lsr@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix > Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04 > > Changwang, > > On 30/08/2023 08:15, linchangwang wrote: > > Hi WG, > > > > When considering adoption, it's important to take into account the following > drafts as well. > > > > Draft #1 link：https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wang-lsr-prefix- > unreachable-annoucement-12.txt > > Draft #2 link：https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp- > ureach-prefix-announce-04.txt > > > > Reasons are as follows: > > > > 1. The two drafts mentioned above are similar in nature. > > The draft #1 covers more scenarios than the draft #2 as mentioned by > Zhibo Hu mail. > > Therefore, a more in-depth discussion and technical comparison should > take place before any adoption decision is made. > > > > 2. The Draft #1 utilizes the existing mechanisms [RFC7794] and [RFC9084] to > indicate reachability by checking whether the originator information is > > NULL. On the other hand, the draft #2 introduces a new flag to indicate > reachability. > > From an implementation perspective, it would be easier to develop using > the existing RFC mechanisms. > > > > 3. The Draft #1 covers more scenarios and can address the aggregation issues > of multiple ABRs. > > However, the Draft #2 explicitly states in Chapter 6 that it does not > > support > this scenario. > > to be more precise, draft #1 talks about more scenarios, it does not > solves any of them, as these scenarios can not be solved by what the > draft #1 introduces. > > draft#2 clearly states the fact that these scenarios are not addressed. > > thanks, > Peter > > > > > 4. If we remove the additional scenarios covered in Draft #1 and compare the > two drafts, the only remaining difference is the method of indicating > unreachable prefixes - > > either through a UPA flag or using the originator TLV. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Changwang > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 3:58 AM > > To: lsr > > Cc: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org > > Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix > Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04 > > > > 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 > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------------------------------- > > 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址 > 中列出 > > 的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部 > 或部分地泄露、复制、 > > 或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮 > 件通知发件人并删除本 > > 邮件！ > > This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New > H3C, which is > > intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any > > use > of the > > information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, > > total > or partial > > disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the > intended > > recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please > > notify the > sender > > by phone or email immediately and delete it! > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > Lsr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
