IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] Thoughts about PUAs - are we not over-engineering?

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Tue, 14 June 2022 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C654CC15D89A; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 05:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pbZz6pootCOf; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 05:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7CF3C1649E1; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 05:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (047-026-251-217.res.spectrum.com [47.26.251.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 637307D07B; Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:51:29 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.100.31\))
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR07MB63863359D147F9EC0FF67689E0AA9@AM0PR07MB6386.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 08:51:28 -0400
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce@ietf.org" <draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce@ietf.org>, draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement <draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7932F2B5-7F14-4EA9-A270-1A860B7FF9E9@chopps.org>
References: <AM0PR07MB63863359D147F9EC0FF67689E0AA9@AM0PR07MB6386.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.100.31)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/KMerY1kEgKX-TClUWJ34OZ7QmbQ>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Thoughts about PUAs - are we not over-engineering?
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 12:51:31 -0000


> On Jun 14, 2022, at 04:59, Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
> What is wrong with simply not doing summaries and forget about these PUAs to pinch holes in the summary prefixes? this worked very well during last two decennia. Are we not over-engineering with PUAs?

100% yes, IMO.

Thanks,
Chris.
[as wg-member]

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email