Aijun,
you keep repeating the same points over and over.
We have responded to them many times in the past. I'm not going to
repeat the answers every time you sent these.
regards,
Peter
On 05/05/2025 06:24, Aijun Wang wrote:
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]
