Hi, all:
Here are some technical questions for the hurry adopted draft about unreachable
prefixes announcement:
1) There exists already “prefix originator” sub-TLV to indicate the associated
prefix is unreachable, what’s the advantage of using other undefined,
to-be-standardized, to-be-implemented sub-TLV?
2) It is unnecessary to define the “UP” flag——if the operator know the
unreachable event in advance, they can also schedule the switchover of the
related services in advance. Why bother IGP to transfer such information?
3) There is very limited usage of LS_Infinity in current network. From the
operator’s viewpoint, we will decrease its usage also in future. Then the
solution should try their best to avoid their usages——Current solutions instead
enhance its usage——It is unacceptable. Let’s keep the network simple.
4) We can’t ignore the partitions scenarios or let’s it go.
5) There should be some mechanisms to control the volume of advertised
unreachable information, when compared with reachable information, as done in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-12#section-6.
Please consider the above technical issues carefully before evaluating and
adopted any proposal.
If the above issues can’t be solved, we request the WG to adopt also the
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/,which
cover and solve all of the above issues.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
