Jie –
Just a short summary from my POV.
Multiple people have provided input to you as to why what you are trying to do
won’t work.
I won’t repeat what has been said before.
I know you really want your solution to work – but it does not.
If you think otherwise, I think it is only because you
Hi Les,
> I fail to understand why you and others on this thread seem to require a
definition for “anycast”.
Asking for definition of "anycast" has a different reason ...
Which is to validate all network conditions which may result in having the
same address advertised by more then one node.
Robert –
For the most part, I think it is most appropriate if the authors of the draft
respond to questions – and I think Ketan has been doing his best to do so.
Since you have specifically targeted your questions to me, I will respond with
a few points.
I fail to understand why you and
Hi Les,
> Knowledge of whether a given prefix is Anycast has proven useful in
existing deployments
Would you be so kind and enlighten us with a few practical examples in
which you exhibit practical usefulness of this flag at the IGP level?
More basic question - is this set by CLI or is there a
Kotesh,
On 19/03/2024 12:44, Kotesh Chundu wrote:
Hi,
I have one query regarding the following content from the IGP UPA draft.
As UPA advertisements in IS-IS are advertised in existing Link State
PDUs (LSPs) and the unit of flooding in IS-IS is an LSP,*it is recommended that, when
Muthu,
On 18/03/2024 10:41, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal wrote:
Hi all,
draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce mentions BGP PIC edge as one
the use cases for UPA in the presence of summarization. However, it is
not quite clear whether UPA is expected to trigger BGP best path
calculation at
I support WG adoption.
However before adoption I agree with what has already been mentioned on ML
the use case to advertise the AC flag and not just for parity with SRv6 IGP
extension that already covers Anycast via AC flag in ISIS extension RFC
9352 and OSPFv3 extension RFC 9513. Since this
