Sure Jie. We will add post adoption. Thanks, Ketan
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 5:16 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ketan, > > > > Thanks for sharing the use cases of this new flag. It would be helpful if > some brief description could be added to the document. > > > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > > *From:* Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, March 21, 2024 1:18 AM > *To:* Acee Lindem <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast > Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06 > > > > Hi Acee/Jie, > > > > The most common users of the anycast property of a prefix are external > controllers/PCE that perform path computation exercises. As an example, > knowing the anycast prefix of a pair of redundant ABRs allows that anycast > prefix SID to be in a SRTE path across the ABRs with protection against one > of those ABR nodes going down or getting disconnected. There are other use > cases. An example of local use on the router by IGPs is to avoid picking > anycast SIDs in the repair segment-list prepared for TI-LFA protection - > this is because it could cause an undesirable path that may not be aligned > during the FRR window and/or post-convergence. > > > > That said, since ISIS (RFC9352) and OSPFv3 (RFC9513) didn't have the > burden of this justification of an use-case, I hope the same burden would > not fall on this OSPFv2 document simply because it only has this one > specific extension. > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:16 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jie, > > I asked this when the flag was added to IS-IS and then to OSPFv3. I agree > it would be good to know why knowing a prefix is an Anycast address is > "useful" when the whole point is that you use the closest one (or some > other criteria). > > Thanks, > Acee > > > On Mar 20, 2024, at 9:09 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi authors, > > > > I just read this document. Maybe I didn't follow the previous > discussion, but it seems in the current version it does not describe how > this newly defined flag would be used by the receiving IGP nodes? > > > > Best regards, > > Jie > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem > > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:43 AM > > To: lsr <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast > Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06 > > > > > > This starts the Working Group adoption call for > draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag. This is a simple OSPFv2 maintenance draft > adding an Anycast flag for IPv4 prefixes to align with IS-IS and OSPFv3. > > > > Please send your support or objection to this list before April 6th, > 2024. > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
