I support WG adoption of this draft. Being able to advertise a link that is not used in the base SPF is a useful functionality to have.
I do think that the language currently used in the draft could be improved. Currently the draft says: “there are requirements to advertise unreachable links in OSPF for purposes other than building the normal Shortest Path Tree.” The term “unreachable link” is a misnomer. If the link were truly unreachable it couldn’t be used for any purpose. I would suggest the language be changed to more closely mimic RFC 5305: “If a link is advertised with the maximum link metric (2^24 - 1), this link MUST NOT be considered during the normal SPF computation. This will allow advertisement of a link for purposes other than building the normal Shortest Path Tree.” “MUST NOT be considered” is a much more accurate description than “unreachable”. I leave it to the authors to decide how best to revise the draft language. Les From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 9:28 PM To: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; lsr-chairs <lsr-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: [Lsr] WG Adoption Call - draft-gong-lsr-ospf-unreachable-link (02/23/24 - 03/08/24) Hi, This email begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gong-lsr-ospf-unreachable-link/ Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by March 8th, 2024. Authors and contributors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to the draft. Thanks, Yingzhen
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
