Hi Gunter, > On Nov 14, 2025, at 5:15 AM, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag-07 > # The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: > https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag-07.txt > # Many thanks for the RTGDIR review from Jeffrey and the shepherd writeup > from Acee Lindem. > # I found the draft well written, easy to ready and to understand the > procedures and have only few observations. > # The idnits tool suggest 2 unused references: > == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa' is defined on > line 391, but no explicit reference was found in the text > == Unused Reference: 'RFC8402' is defined on line 408, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > # comments > # ======== > 119 When a prefix is configured as anycast, the AC-flag MUST be set. > 120 Otherwise, this flag MUST be clear. > GV > What exactly does “configured as anycast” mean? Does it refer to two > routers using the same prefix, or does it require an explicit CLI > configuration marking the prefix as anycast? Maybe that should be more > explicit clarified in the text. > GV > I’m also concerned about operational impact: if a prefix is already > used as an anycast and a router is upgraded to a version that supports this > draft, could the flag suddenly appear even though it was not previously > configured? That could change how the prefix is treated operationally network > wide. > 128 The same prefix can be advertised by multiple routers, and that > if at > 129 least one of them sets the AC-flag in its advertisement, the > prefix > 130 is considered as anycast. > GV> Is there an implied assumption here that: > "The same prefix can be advertised by multiple routers, and if none of > them sets the AC-flag in its advertisement, the prefix SHOULD still be > considered as anycast."
I don't understand why this would be implied. The assumption is that if none of the routers advertise it as anycast that it shouldn't be considered anycast. Thanks, Acee > GV> If this is the intent, it should be stated explicitly. If not, the text > risks being interpreted that way and may need a formal statement that such > condition should not be interpreted this way. > Maybe this something intentionally left open for implementors to decide upon? > Many thanks for this well written document, > Kind Regards, > Gunter Van de Velde > RTG Area Director _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
