Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04

[Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Acee:

Act as LSR chair, I think you should be more responsible to make any unfounded assertions:

We have described the previous statements in

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-06#section-7" rel="nofollow">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-06#section-7, March 26, 2021, one year before the 00 version of draft-ppsenak(March 25,2022)

Then, which draft copy or incorporate which draft?

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

On Sep 1, 2023, at 20:05, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Aijun, 

On Aug 31, 2023, at 23:36, Aijun Wang <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi，Acee:

 

Please read https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-12#section-7" rel="nofollow">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-12#section-7 before making misguide assertions:

 

“The advertisement of PUAM message should only last one configurable period to allow the services that run on the failure prefixes are switchovered.”

I guess I haven’t kept up with all the elements of the draft under adoption that you continue to incorporate into your draft. This has been a continuing theme since initial discussed of the application signaling use case. While I have no interest in improving your draft, making the LSP/LSA short-lived conflicts with the other scenarios your draft purports to address. 

Acee

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Acee Lindem
发送时间: 2023年9月1日 0:50
收件人: Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
抄送: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=[e-mail]>; Huzhibo <huzhibo=[e-mail]>; Peter Psenak <[e-mail]>; linchangwang <[e-mail]>; lsr <[e-mail]>
主题: Re: [Lsr] Working Group Adoption of "IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement" - draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-04

 

 

On Aug 31, 2023, at 12:32, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:

 

Hi Acee,

 

In any case, one will need to update the signaling routers and the routers acting on the signal. 

 

I guess this is clear to all. 

 

Additionally, your request for the adoption was that the draft have a stronger statement about the mechanism being used for solely for signaling for applications (e.g., BGP PIC).

 

As to the applicability my comment was that either draft should state in strong normative language that this is applicable only to applications which data plane uses encapsulation to the next hop. 

 

Said this draft-wang introduces the additional signalling, sort of trying to assure that all nodes in an area understand the new messages - but I am not sure if even advertising PUAM capability means that it will be actually used for all destinations ? 

 

No - but while the draft under adoption (ppsenak-lsr…) is for an ephemeral signal which the WG agreed was a valid use case, in the other draft, the LSAs are long-lived and are also may be used for other purposed than signaling (e.g., reread both sections 4 and 6 of draft-wang-lsr…). This draft starting with a whole different use case but selectively added mechanisms from ppsenak-lsr… 

 

I seem to recall you were a strong proponent of limiting the scope. 

 

 

By responding to this Email inline, some may believe you support the assertion that we should start the adoption of both drafts. Please be clarify this.

 

Well the way I see this is that adoption call is a bit more formal opportunity for WG members to express their opinion on any document. But maybe LSR (for good reasons) have different internal rules to decide which document should be subject to WG adoption and does sort of pre-filtering. 

 

If adoption call proves document has negative comments or lacks cross vendor support it simply does not get adopted. 

 

Maybe I am just spoiled looking at how IDR WG process works :-) 

 

You replied to an Email inline suggesting adoption of both drafts. That is what I think could have been misconstrued - especially by those who didn’t follow the discussion until now who think you are agreeing with this recommendation.  

 

 

As for your other comment that this could be accomplished with BGP or an out-of-bound mechanism, that is true but that could be true of many problem. However, the solution under adoption has running code and wide vendor support.

 

 Right ... As I wrote to Peter - perhaps this is just a pragmatic approach and flooding is what link state uses so be it. 

 

As you know I did try in the past to propose BGP Aggregate withdraw but then feedback of the community was that PEs do not go down that often to justify the extension. 

 

Hmm… We seem to have broad support for the LSR application signaling use case. 

 

Thanks,

Acee

 

 

Best,

Robert

 

 

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr