Hi, Acee:
Please read carefully the description in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-00#section-3:
"In another situation, assume the BGP session is built between Node S2
and T2, via Ps2 and Pt2 respectively. If Node S2 within area 1
become unreachable, the unreachable information can't be advertised
to Node T2 because the summary behaviour on border router R1/R3. The
BGP session between S1 and T2 will be kept until the BGP keepalive
timeout or other detection mechanism takes effect. During this
period, the BGP traffic to Node S2 will be in black hole."
Considering the usage of "infinite metric", version 00 of the
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-00
took the implicit signaling approach, it wants to redefine the meaning of
"infinite metric". Only after the intense discussions, it switched to the
explicit signaling approach(version 02, March 2023), which is the direction
that
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/
took from the beginning(version 00, October, 2019).
>From the above foundation information, I would like to hear why you can't
>admit that draft
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/
> is the first document that provide the problem and the explicit signaling
>mechanism.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
-邮件原件-
发件人: Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2023年8月24日 23:46
收件人: Aijun Wang
抄送: lsr ; draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" -
draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name)
Speaking as WG member:
> On Aug 24, 2023, at 04:59, Aijun Wang wrote:
>
> Object its adoption.
>
> The reasons are the followings:
> 1) It is not the initial draft to describe the problem and provide the
> solution.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/
> 2) The problem and the explicit signaling mechanism is firstly provided by in
> its 00 version(October,2019), far earlier than the current proposal and its
> 00 version(March, 2022).
Let me help you refresh your memory - the -00 version of this draft solved a
completely different problem. The unreachability signaling to other
applications (e.g., BGP PIC) was only added after publication of the draft
under adoption. Over revisions, other aspects of the draft under adoption were
also appropriated (e.g., using infinite metrics). So, your claims of being
“first" are unfounded. Let’s stick to the technical differences between the
drafts.
Thanks,
Acee
> 3) Even after the proposed draft adopt the explicit signaling mechanism, it
> still lacks other mechanisms that can cover more prefixes unreachable
> scenarios, as stated in the
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/
>
> The LSR WG should consider to adopt the more comprehensive and simple
> solution, not the partial and complex design.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Aijun Wang
> China Telecom
>
>
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem
> 发送时间: 2023年8月24日 4:07
> 收件人: lsr
> 抄送: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
> 主题: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" -
> draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name)
>
> LSR Working Group,
>
> This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable Prefix
> Announcement” - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04.
> Please indicate your support or objection on this list prior to September
> 7th, 2023.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
