ch-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix
> Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed
> draft name)
>
> LSR Working Group,
>
> This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable
lto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org>>>"
> > mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org>
> <ma
<mailto:lsr@ietf.org <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>>,
> > > "draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org>
> > > <mailto:dra
-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org>>"
> mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org>
> <mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
org>>,
> > "draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
> > <mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org>"
> > > <mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org>>
> > *Subject
Betreff: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix
Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft
name)
I support adoption and not aware of any undisclosed IPRs.
This draft is extremely valuable for SRv6 locator summarization in multi are
*lsr mailto:lsr@ietf.org>>,
"draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org>"
mailto:draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org>>
*Subject: *[EXT]Re: [Lsr] Working Group Ado
Hi, Ketan:Which part in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement/ is not workable?I want to remind you again that it is the above draft initiates the problem first, insists that the explicit signaling was the direction, covers more scenarios that draft-ppsenak
I support adoption and not aware of any undisclosed IPRs.
This draft is extremely valuable for SRv6 locator summarization in multi
area / multi level networks and being able to used for BGP PIC edge
activation by tracking BGP next hop reachability via UPA.
As SRv6 uses the IPv6 data plane this
uot;
> draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org" <
> draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *[EXT]Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable
> Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-
able Prefix
Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft
name)
Hi Shehzad & Daniel,
I support this work as it is key for summarization in an SRv6/IPv6 network.
Are you not going to advertise and leak across your IGP domain any of the SRv6
I support Working Group adoption
Regards,
Luay
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:07 PM Acee Lindem wrote:
> LSR Working Group,
>
> This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable Prefix
> Announcement” - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04.
> Please indicate your support
aft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" -
draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft name)
[EXTERNAL] This message comes from an external organization.
LSR Working Group,
This begins the
Hi Shehzad & Daniel,
> I support this work as it is key for summarization in an SRv6/IPv6 network.
>
Are you not going to advertise and leak across your IGP domain any of the
SRv6 extensions as described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9352/
for the PEs ?
And if you do, is there still
I support this work as it is key for summarization in an SRv6/IPv6 network.
Shehzad Hassan
Bell Canada
> On Aug 23, 2023, at 4:07 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
> LSR Working Group,
>
> This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable Prefix
> Announcement” -
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix
Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed draft
name)
I support.
This is a key requirement for large scale deployment models using summarization
in SRv6 networks
—CH
> On Aug 23,
I support.
This is a key requirement for large scale deployment models using summarization
in SRv6 networks
—CH
> On Aug 23, 2023, at 1:07 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
> LSR Working Group,
>
> This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable Prefix
> Announcement” -
Hi Peter,
> The version -04 does not contain normative MUST that UPA shall only be
> > used to trigger invalidation when end to end encapsulation is used for
> > subject application(s). So as written is in fact quite undeployable in a
> > mixed vendor and legacy node(s) environment doing hop by
Hi Acee/All,
I support the adoption of this document by the WG. Several WG members have
been actively involved in the development of this document for over a year
now. The authors have included the feedback and as a result the solution
has evolved very well.
While there is another document [1]
Hi all,
I support working group adoption
Dan Bernier
On 2023-08-23, 4:07 PM, "Acee Lindem" mailto:acee.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
LSR Working Group,
This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable Prefix
Announcement” - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04.
Hi Robert,
please see inline:
On 23/08/2023 14:48, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Dear LSR WG,
I object on two basis ...
1)
The version -04 does not contain normative MUST that UPA shall only be
used to trigger invalidation when end to end encapsulation is used for
subject application(s). So as
Hi Hannes,
> On Aug 24, 2023, at 6:16 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote:
>
> +1.
>
> Changing the semantics of a 20 year+ deployed protocol is most always a bad
> idea
> and for sure will lead into unanticipated side-effects.
>
> FWIW - I do no dispute the usefulness of an "unreachable prefix",
>
;
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: lsr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem
> 发送时间: 2023年8月24日 4:07
> 收件人: lsr
> 抄送: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
> 主题: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" -
&
+1.
Changing the semantics of a 20 year+ deployed protocol is most always a bad idea
and for sure will lead into unanticipated side-effects.
FWIW - I do no dispute the usefulness of an "unreachable prefix",
but would strongly advocate for a dedicated protocol extension.
/hannes
On Wed, Aug 23,
Support, this is a useful solution.
-Original Message-
From: Acee Lindem
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 10:07 PM
To: lsr
Cc: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" -
draft-ppsenak-lsr-
Dear LSR WG,
I object on two basis ...
1)
The version -04 does not contain normative MUST that UPA shall only be used
to trigger invalidation when end to end encapsulation is used for subject
application(s). So as written is in fact quite undeployable in a mixed
vendor and legacy node(s)
I object. This solution is a poor way of addressing the issues. My reasons
have been discussed to death already.
Tony
> On Aug 23, 2023, at 1:07 PM, Acee Lindem wrote:
>
> LSR Working Group,
>
> This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable Prefix
> Announcement” -
: draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-annou...@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix
> Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04 (Fixed
> draft name)
>
> LSR Working Group,
>
> This begins the working g
LSR Working Group,
This begins the working group adoption call for “IGP Unreachable Prefix
Announcement” - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-unreach-prefix-announce-04.
Please indicate your support or objection on this list prior to September 7th,
2023.
Thanks,
Acee
29 matches
Mail list logo
