Hi Les and Acee,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
Regarding the two questions, my reply is as follows:
1. About advertising protected prefix,
When in a network with incremental/partial deployment of SAV, it is possible
to identify which prefixes need to be used to generate SAV rules through the
protection prefix.
After receiving this routing information, it is up to the router to decide
whether to differentiate and process it based on this sub-TLV, or whether to
discard packets from unprotected prefixes.
Of course, once all routers in the domain support SAV, all prefixes should
be processed without the need for specialized protection prefixes.
2. About advertising reverse cost,
The Prefix-reverse-cost sub-TLV is used to carry the total reverse cost
from the router where the prefix is located to ABR in the inter-area network.
If within the same area, it is not necessary to carry the reverse cost sub-TLV.
I have read the patent
https://patents.google.com/patent/US11882019B1/en?oq=11882019.
I am not sure whether my understanding is accurate. It mentions the need
for additional SPF calculation rooted at the other ABRs for the source area
when inter-area, but does not describe how to get reverse metrics. I think it
is still necessary to advertise reverse cost.
Best regards,
Yuanxiang
-Original Message-
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 7:23 AM
To: Acee Lindem ;
draft-lin-savnet-lsr-intra-domain-met...@ietf.org
Cc: lsr
Subject: RE: [Lsr] Intra-domain SAVNET method -
draft-lin-savnet-lsr-intra-domain-method-03
+1
The problem can be solved - and in a much more robust way than what is proposed
in the draft - without any protocol extensions.
There is no reason for this draft.
Les
> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 12:50 PM
> To: draft-lin-savnet-lsr-intra-domain-met...@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr
> Subject: [Lsr] Intra-domain SAVNET method -
> draft-lin-savnet-lsr-intra-
> domain-method-03
>
> Speaking as WG member:
>
> Co-Authors,
>
> I see you have a slot at the LSR meeting on Thursday to present the
> subject draft.
>
> I believe this document is misguided. You shouldn't need to advertise
> protected prefixes. If you are doing Source Address Validation for
> intra- domain sources, why wouldn't you do it for all of them? What do
> you do for the intra-domain prefixes that aren't advertised (blindly
> forward them or summarily discard them)? If you were to only do SAV on
> certain prefixes, this should be a local decision as opposed to
> something that is advertised by the sources.
>
> Also, you shouldn't need to advertise any reverse metric. At least
> within an area, you have all the reverse costs in link-sate. Incoming
> interfaces for asymmetric paths can be readily calculated without any IGP
> advertisement.
> Algorithms to accomplish this are described in
>
> https://patents.google.com/patent/US11882019B1/en?oq=11882019
>
> The SAVNET WG shouldn't adopt any document requiring IGP advertisement
> without LSR approval.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
-
本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出
的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、
或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本
邮件！
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C,
which is
intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use
of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total
or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender
by phone or email immediately and delete it!
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
