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

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) ;

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

(ppsenak) ; 'linchangwang' ; 'Acee Lindem' ; 'lsr' Cc: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org Subject: [Lsr] 答复: Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04 Hi，Les: The use of the max-metric is only

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

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