Speaking as a WG member, I support the publication of this document.
I have reviewed the document and have the following comments for the
authors to consider. The line numbers are from idnits.
18 In the presence of summarization, there is a need to signal loss of
19 reachability to an individual prefix covered by the summary in order
20 to enable fast convergence away from paths to the node which owns the
21 prefix which is no longer reachable.
Suggested change:
In the presence of summarization, there is a need to signal loss of
reachability to an individual prefix covered by the summary. This enables
fast convergence by steering traffic away from the node which owns the
prefix and is no longer reachable.
96 Link-state IGP protocols like IS-IS and OSPF are primarily used to
== Unused Reference: 'ISO10589' is defined on line 503, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
Reference to [ISO10589] should be added here. Also add RFC2328 and RFC5340
for OSPF?
183 Reachability, e.g., SRv6 Locator [I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions],
186 Reachability TLV [I-D.ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo], and IPv6 Algorithm
187 Prefix Reachability TLV [I-D.ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo]
[I-D.ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions] should be replaced by RFC9352.
[I-D.ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo] -> RFC9502
235 UPA in OSPFv2 is supported for OSPFv2 Summary-LSA [RFC2328], AS-
236 external-LSAs [RFC2328], NSSA AS-external LSA.[RFC3101], and OSPFv2
237 Extended Prefix TLV [I-D.ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo].
Question: For OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV [I-D.ietf-lsr-ip-flexalgo], do you
mean
OSPFv2 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV?
Please note that all other OSPF UPA advertisements are defined at LSA level
except this TLV.
248 external prefix inside OSPF or OSPFv3 LSA that has the age set to
s/OSPF or OSPFv3/OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
262 reachability in a source area. Such requirement of reachability MUST
263 not be applied for UPAs, as they are propagating unreachability.
s/MUST not/MUST NOT
316 A new Prefix Attributes Sub-TLV has been defined in
317 [I-D.chen-lsr-prefix-extended-flags] for advertising additional
[I-D.chen-lsr-prefix-extended-flags] should be updated to
[I-D.ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags]
469 as described in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] for IS-IS, in [RFC2328][ and
Please remove the extra "[".
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 11:13 AM Yingzhen Qu <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This email begins a 2 week WG Last Call for the following draft:
> IGP Unreachable Prefix
> Announcementhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/
>
> Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by May
> 2nd, 2025.
>
> Authors and contributors,
>
> Please indicate to the list your knowledge of any IPR related to this work.
>
> Thanks,
> Yingzhen
>
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
