Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06

Sure, Acee. We can take that on :-)

I hope it is ok that this is done post adoption?

Thanks,
Ketan

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 9:35 PM Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Mar 20, 2024, at 11:17 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Acee/Jie,
> >
> > The most common users of the anycast property of a prefix are external
> controllers/PCE that perform path computation exercises. As an example,
> knowing the anycast prefix of a pair of redundant ABRs allows that anycast
> prefix SID to be in a SRTE path across the ABRs with protection against one
> of those ABR nodes going down or getting disconnected. There are other use
> cases. An example of local use on the router by IGPs is to avoid picking
> anycast SIDs in the repair segment-list prepared for TI-LFA protection -
> this is because it could cause an undesirable path that may not be aligned
> during the FRR window and/or post-convergence.
> >
> > That said, since ISIS (RFC9352) and OSPFv3 (RFC9513) didn't have the
> burden of this justification of an use-case, I hope the same burden would
> not fall on this OSPFv2 document simply because it only has this one
> specific extension.
>
> But they also weren't added in a draft specifically devoted to the Anycast
> flag. It would be good to list the examples above as  potential use cases.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ketan
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:16 PM Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jie,
> >
> > I asked this when the flag was added to IS-IS and then to OSPFv3. I
> agree it would be good to know why knowing a prefix is an Anycast address
> is "useful" when the whole point is that you use the closest one (or some
> other criteria).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Acee
> >
> > > On Mar 20, 2024, at 9:09 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi authors,
> > >
> > > I just read this document. Maybe I didn't follow the previous
> discussion, but it seems in the current version it does not describe how
> this newly defined flag would be used by the receiving IGP nodes?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jie
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 4:43 AM
> > > To: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
> > > Cc: draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag@ietf.org
> > > Subject: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption Poll for "Updates to Anycast
> Property advertisement for OSPFv2" - draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag-06
> > >
> > >
> > > This starts the Working Group adoption call for
> draft-chen-lsr-anycast-flag. This is a simple OSPFv2 maintenance draft
> adding an Anycast flag for IPv4 prefixes to align with IS-IS and OSPFv3.
> > >
> > > Please send your support or objection to this list before April 6th,
> 2024.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Acee
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Lsr mailing list
> > > Lsr@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
> >
>
>