[Lsr] Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce (4/17/2025 - 5/2/2025)

[Peter Psenak]

Robert,

On 30/04/2025 17:02, Robert Raszuk wrote:

Indeed we agreed on the list but I never noticed text being added to 
address it into section 4. In -04 it is not there.

we have not added it yet, but we agreed I would. I will do when the next 
version is pushed, but wanted to wait for some more comments to include.

thanks,
Peter


Thx,
R.

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 4:59 PM Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote:

    To cover the make-before-break situation you and Peter discussed
    in this thread.

    >>
    >> If there are no alternate paths I would rather keep one
    installed active - for example to address the case where one ABR
    can still reach egress PE and the other one generated UPA.
    >>

    Thanks,
    Acee

    > On Apr 30, 2025, at 10:57 AM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net>
    wrote:
    >
    > Which text ?
    >
    >
    
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-03&url2=draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04&difftype=--html
    
<https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-03&url2=draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04&difftype=--html>
    >
    > Thx,
    > R.
    >
    > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 4:52 PM Acee Lindem
    <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Hi Robert,
    >
    > I guess you are now fine with the draft with this text.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Acee
    >
    > > On Apr 23, 2025, at 10:51 AM, Robert Raszuk
    <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote:
    > >
    > > > ok, I'm fine adding some text for your case.
    > >
    > > Thx Peter !
    > >
    > > It is not "my use case" but ability to trigger UPA for
    make-before-break which I think always is rather a good thing.
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > > R.
    > >
    > >
    > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 4:40 PM Peter Psenak
    <ppse...@cisco.com> wrote:
    > > Hi Robert,
    > >
    > > On 23/04/2025 16:35, Robert Raszuk wrote:
    > >> Hi Peter,
    > >>> If the egress PE is the only BGP NH, then reacting to
    max-metric or OL-bit set would make some BGP destinations unreachable.
    > >>
    > >> Well this entirely depends on how one reacts on UPA if UPA is
    signalling the only one left BGP path/NH as down irrespective of
    the trigger. Does it stop the service to the destination or not ...
    > >>
    > >> If there are alternate paths the best path can install new
    next hop.
    > >>
    > >> If there are no alternate paths I would rather keep one
    installed active - for example to address the case where one ABR
    can still reach egress PE and the other one generated UPA.
    > >>
    > >>> So why not trigger UPA in such cases to hint him to switch
    to alternate next hops if available ?
    > >> I'm not saying it can not be done. The implementation can
    chose to advertise the UPA for the summary component prefix if the
    such prefix metric in the source area/domain crosses certain value
    or if the prefix originator is overloaded.
    > >> But this would make it not compliant with current text in
    section 4 which was the main point of my question. So why not
    leave the door a bit open for it in the spec ?
    > > ok, I'm fine adding some text for your case.
    > > thanks,
    > > Peter
    > >
    > >>
    > >> Thx,
    > >> R.
    > >
    >

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org