Hi, Acee: When I want to discuss with the authors, you can’t wait to stand out, try to represent the authors.
If you are familiar with the topic, it’s OK. But actually you are not familiar with this topic(or you stuck in your attitude/prejudice—-this is not the right behavior of one WG chair) as the authors and us. Then please let’s wait the authors’ responses. I restate them(considering all your responses until now) here, please read them carefully before any response: 1) The “U/UP flag” used to indicate the reason of the unreachable prefixes is: NOT necessarily(LSInfinity is enough, although I don’t recommended it either), NOT suitable(IGP shouldn’t flood management purposes information) and NOT enough(There are many reasons for the unreachable prefixes). 2) The usage of “U/UP flag” in this document is DIFFERENT from that in RFC8706, in which the receiver of such information will do SPF calculations based on the related flags. But for “U/UP flag”, they are just trying to give the reason of unreachable. 3) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04#section-5 is the the COPYCAT from other proposal. If the WGLC document wants to include, please state admirations to the original authors. This is the decent IETF behavior. (The original idea was described in Founder Draft[1], ONE YEAR earlier than the first version of the WGLC document) 4) The partition possibilities in the network is also first discussed at the Founder Draft[1], please remove it because the WGLC document solve nothing after the “Garrulous” description. Or, just state simply as “out of the scope of this document”. There are also other issues on this WGLC document but I must wait first the responses from the authors on the above questions. [1] Founder Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-06#section-7 Aijun Wang China Telecom > On May 1, 2025, at 22:42, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > Speaking as WG Co-Chair: > > Aijun, > > You've raised these concerns before and they were responded to. The fact that > you are more vehement doesn't make them any more compelling. > Please keep in mind that many of us are busy and don't wish to engage in > circular arguments. > > Speaking as WG Member: > > I'll respond one more time for your inevitable appeals... > >> On Apr 30, 2025, at 8:53 PM, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, Peter: >> >> I must remind you that the following things: >> >> 1) The newly defined “U/UP flags” MUST be removed, as you declared they are >> trying to “give the reason of unreachable”, which is not suitable for IGP >> protocol, and also not enough to describe various reasons for the >> unreachability. > > As I stated previously, there is a precedence with signaling whether or not > the outage is planned in RFC8706. This may determine the reaction to the > unreachability by other routers in the domain. It need not be specified since > this is a generalized mechanism. > >> >> 2) Remove the “partition” related description. Current contents doesn’t >> solve the problem, no useful information provided to the reader. > > This section is useful as it states that the mechanisms do NOT attempt to > solve the partition problem. > >> >> 3) Remove the control knob considerations on the ABR. Because they are >> first provided by other proposal, and current contents covers only part of >> them. > > This needs to be configured as well as the ranges of prefixes subject to > reachability signaling. > >> >> After the above adjustments, there will be nothing needs to be standardized, >> the document should be changed to “Information Track”. > > You either didn't read or understand the draft. The abstract alone should > make it obvious that this isn't an informational specification. > > > Acee > > >> >> >> Aijun Wang >> China Telecom >> >>>> On Apr 30, 2025, at 23:09, Peter Psenak >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>>>> >>>>> Thx, >>>>> R. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 4:52 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 -- [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
