Hi Acee:
You're right, there are alternatives to address inter-domain link
advertisements, and this document attempts to address such issues in a more
simplified way, reducing the number of BGP-LS sessions required, or avoid the
configurations related to the peering AS domains as required by RFC 9346. Do
you have any suggestions for the problems this article is trying to solve?
Thanks
Zhibo Hu
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 3:03 AM
To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>
Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes
(01/05/2024 - 01/19/2024)
Speaking as WG member:
I don’t support adoption of this draft.
First of all, I think the basic premise of the draft is flawed in that a link
is advertised as a stub and, from that, one can deduce uses of the link. Why
not just advertise what is being deduced?
Second, I don’t think the draft is necessary. The use case in A.1 is solely for
an IGP router to advertise this stub link characteristic to a controller for
inter-AS TE. Since it is only for the controller why wouldn’t be BGP-LS be
used? It seems this is how it ultimately gets to the controller anyway.
Furthermore, if it were to be put into the IGPs, why wouldn’t something like
RFC 9346 be used for inter-AS TE? For the use case in A.2, anycast prefix
advertisement is already handled and documents exist to identify a prefix as an
anycast address. For the use case in A.3, I don’t even understand how it works
or what is supposed to happen between BGP and the IGPs? What is different about
this from normal BGP route recursion over the IGP route? For this, the fact
that it is a stub link is irrelevant.
Thanks,
Acee
On Jan 5, 2024, at 19:23, Yingzhen Qu
<yingzhen.i...@gmail.com<mailto:yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,
This begins a 2 week WG Adoption Call for the following draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes/
Please indicate your support or objections by January 19th, 2024.
Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR
that applies to the draft.
*** Please note that this is the second WG adoption poll of the draft. The
first one was tried two years ago and you can see the discussions in the
archive:
[Lsr] WG Adoption Call for draft-wang-lsr-stub-link-attributes-02
(ietf.org)<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/Li7wJsaY68gzJ8mXxff7K-Fy_nw/>
Thanks,
Yingzhen
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
