On 27/06/2025 08:47, Aijun Wang wrote:
Trim the unrelated contents, to reflect the key confusion:
According to the following responses, the newly defined u/up flag is
optional, and they indicate the “the reason why the unreachability was
advertised”
Then, if only the “U”flag is attached, what’s the reason for the
unreachability?
loss of reachability that was not planned.
Peter
If I am correct, you want to define a term like "the protocol specific
way of specifying unreachability". Then you want to state early in
the document something like
A router that implements UPA MUST attach the U-bit to any
announcement that contains the protocol specific way of specifying
unreachability. Conversely, any announcement with the U-bit MUST also
include the protocol specific way of specifying unreachability.
##PP
advertisement of the prefix unreachability has been defined in the
past and we
are not allowed to change it, as that would result in a backward
compatibility issue.
So we can not mandate any new-bit for signaling the unreachability. We
are just
indicating with the optional new flags the reason why the
unreachbaility was advertised.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
