Re: [Lsr] 答复: Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

2023-08-30 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Aijun – You either have not understood the points I have made, or you have not read what I wrote closely enough. As I have done my best to be as clear as possible, I can only ask that you read my responses to both Changwang and Zhibo again – as well as reread Peter’s response to Changwang. If

[Lsr] 答复: Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

2023-08-30 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi,Les: The use of the max-metric is only to the let the legacy routers to ignore the PUAM message(the LSA that is advertised with the prefix originator set to NULL), to assure the interoperability with existing routers. It is same for both solutions. The main difference for the explicit

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

2023-08-30 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Zhibo - Please see inline. > -Original Message- > From: Huzhibo > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 6:33 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) > ; linchangwang ; > Acee Lindem ; lsr > Cc: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org > Subject:

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

2023-08-30 Thread Huzhibo
Hi Les: I think you may have connected something. Existing routers, on receiving a prefix reachability advertisement with a U-Flag described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/ also will interpret that prefix as being reachable. Both two draft

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

2023-08-30 Thread Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Changwang - It is very important to note ... > > 2. The Draft #1 utilizes the existing mechanisms [RFC7794] and [RFC9084] to > indicate reachability by checking whether the originator information is > >NULL. This statement is incorrect. There is no existing mechanism defined in the

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

2023-08-30 Thread Peter Psenak
Changwang, On 30/08/2023 08:15, linchangwang wrote: Hi WG, When considering adoption, it's important to take into account the following drafts as well. Draft #1 link:https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-12.txt Draft #2

Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04

2023-08-30 Thread linchangwang
Hi WG, When considering adoption, it's important to take into account the following drafts as well. Draft #1 link:https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-12.txt Draft #2

Re: [Lsr] Regd draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement

2023-08-30 Thread Aijun Wang
Hi, Ketan:You said that “there is still not workable… …” , should we refer to the latest version?https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/ has evolved 13 versions to reflect the discussions on the list, then I am eager to know which part let you make the