>>> can’t define specific value for “unreachability” why can we define the
>>> specific value for “LS-Infinity”?
>>>
>>
>> KT> For LS-Infinity - please read RFC2328.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ketan
>>
>>
>>>
>>&g
6, 2023 11:52 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>
Cc: John Drake 40yahoo@dmarc.ietf.org>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>; Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Technical questions for draft about unreachable pref
@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Ketan –
>>
>>
>>
>> I am very happy to be wrong in this case.
>>
>> We are in full agreement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Les
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:
laulikar
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:52 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsb...@cisco.com>
Cc: John Drake 40yahoo@dmarc.ietf.org>; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) <ppse...@cisco.com>; Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Technical questions for dra
*From:* Lsr *On Behalf Of * Ketan Talaulikar
> *Sent:* Monday, November 6, 2023 11:52 PM
> *To:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> *Cc:* John Drake ; Peter Psenak
> (ppsenak) ; Aijun Wang ;
> lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Technical questions for draft about unreachable
> p
(ginsberg)
Cc: John Drake ; Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Aijun Wang ; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Technical questions for draft about unreachable prefixes announcement
Hi Les,
I disagree with your reading of RFC9084 (OSPF Prefix Originator).
Sec 1
This document proposes extensions
ke
mailto:40yahoo@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Cc: Peter Psenak (ppsenak) mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>>; Aijun
Wang mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>>;
lsr@ietf.org<mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Technical questions for draft about unreachable prefixes
announcement
Hi Ai
Behalf Of * Ketan Talaulikar
> *Sent:* Monday, November 6, 2023 3:01 PM
> *To:* John Drake
> *Cc:* Peter Psenak (ppsenak) ; Aijun Wang <
> wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; lsr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Technical questions for draft about unreachable
> prefixes announ
] Technical questions for draft about unreachable prefixes
announcement
Hi Aijun,
As your co-author on the OSPF Prefix Originator RFC, I have stated many times
(e.g. [1]) that overloading semantics of Prefix Originator is not a good or
clean protocol encoding. Semantically, it is wrong
Hi Aijun,
As your co-author on the OSPF Prefix Originator RFC, I have stated many
times (e.g. [1]) that overloading semantics of Prefix Originator is not a
good or clean protocol encoding. Semantically, it is wrong and a very bad
protocol design in my opinion. Going by this logic, tomorrow,
Aijun,
You castigated Peter for his lack of rigor in his reply to your email, however,
I think that was completely unfounded. Further, your reply to Peter seems to
be argument by emphatic assertion, rather than "technical analysis/comparison".
Thanks,
John
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at
Hi, Peter:
Let’s focus on the technical analysis/comparison for the mentioned issues, and
don’t repeat the subjective comments that without any solid analysis.
Detail replies inline below.
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
> On Nov 6, 2023, at 14:53, Peter Psenak wrote:
>
> Aijun,
>
> please see
Aijun,
please see inline:
On 06/11/2023 13:23, Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, all:
Here are some technical questions for the hurry adopted draft about
unreachable prefixes announcement:
1) There exists already “prefix originator” sub-TLV to indicate the
associated prefix is unreachable, what’s the
Hi, all:
Here are some technical questions for the hurry adopted draft about unreachable
prefixes announcement:
1) There exists already “prefix originator” sub-TLV to indicate the associated
prefix is unreachable, what’s the advantage of using other undefined,
to-be-standardized,
14 matches
Mail list logo
