Hi，Acee:
Please read
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-12#section-7
before making misguide assertions:
“The advertisement of PUAM message should only last one configurable period to
allow the services that run on the failure prefixes are
Hi, Les:
Please do not mislead the experts within the LSR.
Detail replies are inline below.
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
发件人: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Les Ginsberg
(ginsberg)
发送时间: 2023年8月31日 22:49
收件人: Huzhibo ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
;
Hi Les,
> On Aug 31, 2023, at 4:39 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> wrote:
>
> Acee -
> From: Acee Lindem
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 10:33 AM
> To: Acee Lindem
> Cc: lsr ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flood...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" -
>
Acee -
From: Acee Lindem
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 10:33 AM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: lsr ; draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flood...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Working Group Last Call for "IS-IS Fast Flooding" -
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-fast-flooding-04
I support publication.
I’ve done the shepherds review
> On Aug 31, 2023, at 12:32, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Hi Acee,
>
>> In any case, one will need to update the signaling routers and the routers
>> acting on the signal.
>
> I guess this is clear to all.
>
>> Additionally, your request for the adoption was that the draft have a
>> stronger
Hi Acee,
In any case, one will need to update the signaling routers and the routers
> acting on the signal.
I guess this is clear to all.
Additionally, your request for the adoption was that the draft have a
> stronger statement about the mechanism being used for solely for signaling
> for
Hi Robert,
> On Aug 31, 2023, at 4:18 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Hi Les,
>
> > But existing implementations will NOT ignore a prefix reachability
> > advertisement just because
> > it has a source Router ID set to 0 as
> > draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement defines.
>
> True,
Zhibo –
[Zhibo:] draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement doesn`t use “Router ID =
0” to implement backward compatibility. It only provides two options:
capability negotiation and MAX metric. When capability negotiation changes,
there is no requirement to update the MAX metric value. It
Peter,
> > I am not sure what harm would it make to start WG adoption call on both
> > drafts and see the results.
> >
> > So far I am not seeing strong and uniform adoption support for either
> > one :)
>
> I hope you are not serious. Having two different ways of signalling the
> same thing in
Robert,
On 31/08/2023 01:18, Robert Raszuk wrote:
*Hi Les,*
But existing implementations will NOT ignore a prefix reachability advertisement just because
it has a source Router ID set to 0 as draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement defines.
True, but let's do not forget the bigger
Robert,
We are on the same page. What I said was “summarize the common parts, and
highlight their differences”.
-Jie
From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 5:36 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy)
Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) ; Huzhibo
; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ;
Hi Peter & Les,
I was looking at the draft, but failed to find any text which would be a
normative MUST and would state that only advertisers of a given summary are
allowed to inject specific UPAs covered by those summaries.
If it comes from some other node it MUST be dropped.
I think this is
Robert,
On 31/08/2023 02:36, Robert Raszuk wrote:
it would be helpful to summarize the common parts of the two solutions,
Actually IMO it would be much more helpful to summarise differences of
both solutions not common parts.
please read both drafts and you would easily get the
> it would be helpful to summarize the common parts of the two solutions,
Actually IMO it would be much more helpful to summarise differences of both
solutions not common parts.
Thx,
r.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 11:23 AM Dongjie (Jimmy)
wrote:
> Hi Les and Robert,
>
>
>
> Please see some
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsberg=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 10:57 AM
To: Huzhibo ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ;
linchangwang ; Acee Lindem ;
lsr
Cc: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of
Hi Les and Robert,
Please see some comments inline:
From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 4:19 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Huzhibo ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak)
; linchangwang ; Acee Lindem
; lsr ;
*Hi Les,*
> But existing implementations will NOT ignore a prefix reachability
advertisement just because
> it has a source Router ID set to 0 as
> draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement
defines.
True, but let's do not forget the bigger picture here. The dst is already
covered by summary
17 matches
Mail list logo
