Hi Paul,
please se inline:
On 25/09/2025 04:38, Paul Wouters via Datatracker wrote:
Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there any operational considerations worth mentioning in the document?
I believe we mentioned the ones that exists in the appropriate sections
- 3.3, 4.3, 5, 6,
Would setting the UP flag cause other properly implemented systems not
supporting the flag to change behaviour?
absolutely not. All routers understand the "unreachable" metric that we
use for UPA because such metric is part of the base protocol specification.
As a result, all routers, regardless whether they understand the new
flags or not, will ignore UPA advertisement during the route calculation.
Routers that understand the new flags and are configured to use them
will do so on top.
thanks,
Peter
I assume this would not be the case
and that is why no operational considerations were added?
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
