Hi Eric, > On Dec 23, 2025, at 10:00 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag-09: 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-anycast-flag/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A glimpse of the "good ole IPv4" OSPFv2 ;-) > > This sounds like a useful addition, but it would be nice to explain why `It is > useful for other routers to know` as written in the abstract and in the > introduction.
A use case was in the draft but it seemed to take us down a rat hole and the consensus was to remove it. Suffice it to say that there are backup/reroute scenarios where you don't want to use a path/SID associated with an anycast address. The equivalent flag is already standardized in IS-IS and OSPFv3. > > Finally, the shepherd's write-up misses the justification for the intended > status. I've updated. > > Thanks for the work done Thanks for the review. Acee > > -éric > > PS: nice to have such a sweet and easy I-D as my last AD review of 2025 ;-) > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
