[Idr] Re: draft-tantsura-idr-unreachability-safi-00.txt

[gengnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Had a look at the draft. A question to my mind is: for what prefixes do we need to announce using the new proposed safi.

1. the prefixes that have been announced/propagated to a peer but now become to fail to pass the local policy due to policy changes?
2. the prefixes that are received from a peer but failed to pass the local policy, and thus will not be propagated further?
3. the prefixes that failed to pass the local policy (e.g., RPKI invalid) but still be propagated?
4. …

Best,
Nan

From: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 5:57 AM
To: idr@ietf. org <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Idr] draft-tantsura-idr-unreachability-safi-00.txt

Hi,

The proposal as written is just a form of a free floating idea.

#1 - I would start first in providing a hook which would describe in which BGP PATH ATTRIBUTE of the BGP UPDATE MSG you are going to carry those NLRIs ... MP-REACH-NLRI ? MP-UNREACH-NLRI ?  NEW ONE ?

#2 - Your justification for this work fully overlaps with already existing IDR WG document:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-operational-message-00.txt  Please kindly explain what gain do you see to add what you have proposed in the draft to BGP UPDATE MSG ?

#3 - Value: 86 (to be assigned by IANA) .. That would be squatting at this point. Not good !

#4 - I am completely not following on your list of reasons:

Type 2: Unreachability Reason Code

   *  Length: 2 octets
   *  Value: Detailed reason code (registry to be established)
   *  0: Unspecified
   *  1: Policy Blocked
   *  2: Security Filtered
   *  3: RPKI Invalid
   *  4-65535: Reserved for future use

I assume you are still trying to announce your own prefix which became unreachable in your domain ... so what does it mean to announce it with any of the types like 1, 2 or 3 ?

Or are you dreaming of any BGP speaker on the internet suddenly broadcasting to anyone in the world that he failed to install a received BGP prefix due to one of those listed reasons ???

To me this proposal looks too raw for any consideration at this point.

Regards,
Robert

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:12 PM
Subject: I-D Action: draft-tantsura-idr-unreachability-safi-00.txt
To: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>


Internet-Draft draft-tantsura-idr-unreachability-safi-00.txt is now available.

   Title:   BGP Unreachability Information SAFI
   Authors: Jeff Tantsura
            Donald Sharp
            Vivek Venkatraman
            Karthikeya Venkat Muppalla
   Name:    draft-tantsura-idr-unreachability-safi-00.txt
   Pages:   12
   Dates:   2025-11-11

Abstract:

   This document defines a new BGP Subsequent Address Family Identifier
   (SAFI) called "Unreachability Information" that allows the
   propagation of prefix unreachability information through BGP without
   affecting the installation or removal of routes in the Routing
   Information Base (RIB) or Forwarding Information Base (FIB).  This
   mechanism enables network operators to share information about
   unreachable prefixes for monitoring, debugging, and coordination
   purposes while maintaining complete separation from the active
   routing plane.

The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tantsura-idr-unreachability-safi/

There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tantsura-idr-unreachability-safi-00.html

Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts


_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>