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
Hi Hannes,
> On Aug 24, 2023, at 6:16 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
>
> +1.
>
> Changing the semantics of a 20 year+ deployed protocol is most always a bad
> idea
> and for sure will lead into unanticipated side-effects.
>
> FWIW - I do no dispute the usefulness of an "unreachable prefix",
>
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.
> 2) The problem and the explicit signaling mechanism is firstly provided by
+1.
Changing the semantics of a 20 year+ deployed protocol is most always a bad idea
and for sure will lead into unanticipated side-effects.
FWIW - I do no dispute the usefulness of an "unreachable prefix",
but would strongly advocate for a dedicated protocol extension.
/hannes
On Wed, Aug 23,
Object its adoption.
The reasons are the followings:
1) It is not the initial draft to describe the problem and provide the solution.
2) The problem and the explicit signaling mechanism is firstly provided by
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/
in its
Support, this is a useful solution.
-Original Message-
From: Acee Lindem
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 10:07 PM
To: lsr
Cc: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" -
