Hi Yingzhen,
thanks for your comments, please see inline (##PP):
On 04/05/2025 08:16, Yingzhen Qu wrote:
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.
##PP
done
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?
##PP
done
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
##PP
done
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?
##PP
yes, it's for OSPFv2 IP Algorithm Prefix Reachability Sub-TLV. Fixed the
text.
Please note that all other OSPF UPA advertisements are defined at LSA
level except this TLV.
##PP
That is correct, please note that OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA, nor
the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV have the metric value.
248 external prefix inside OSPF or OSPFv3 LSA that has the age set to
s/OSPF or OSPFv3/OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
##PP
fixed
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
##PP
fixed
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 "[".
##PP
fixed.
thanks,
Peter
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 Announcement
https://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]
