IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 15 June 2022 12:13 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 12FB1C15D889 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 05:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 r-iJcbYRs4Zz for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 05:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25841C15D887 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 05:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id d14so15788160eda.12 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 05:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gs9Uoa/OQ+NA+vDJ0WmgyT2edFQ2mLsokIAuv7I5yd0=; b=FFl0fyICQ6by11w9/63SfIgbpjbcXVZeJUPhQEJql+htaCMZOk5U0qR+LtajPS0XCu /evZ/7W9SY3iHTs/DozxU71m4B8Y02Ju2Y2w56iFs0FnZhekGNKZeZnOw1xcSJtgG/wN 5qqcTma5TCroDEahgCP06cuF2+eNz639nhxjOKOFELuKt3l2LP3na/W/mVW9ISqnDqAx YRkxa9uYJS+/gAcANJkXGf4Hce8YG1UNZCusQt6E93FA+yLMWoXy8wKEOD0KXWrmVwsv 1tuB1sQmzD1vKl4KlJwuXtqIogUberbN+myZqZwky2mko+ve0EJ54/h+x9vCcgpFFqkT MPPw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gs9Uoa/OQ+NA+vDJ0WmgyT2edFQ2mLsokIAuv7I5yd0=; b=xax/lQTz/aVbqxJbJ+5kvq/uFPk00CtyvyM9xeU+mmz18VEl7P8lEYwe2N9pZvUCMn GBNMsQvrHmYtayOILyTrjC4Wz9hyGFVYyFiwt9pkvha6N4kG5XdPevRpTGnSjdv8+AfO j1FPJ/bpodX+89M7GJ2+oeHe+zgaTOJ9AuZk6oEUteNGrLzcoy0FzCu8KrLpvNrrw+Mo lQDswfEuRCSCtOI4AhBxiIEaoojlDHAtkkavrCKs8dj+sgsTwLzMPqhThYT9jI4RHOy+ CHJS2SDX5VbBnEXZ6Rmz9rOAqIF/9+fgj75T8jL+gwL/HZBsM6ApJ80cXBwbekgvMJgN UYKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ZJ7wK141SXPVukBgcgXoMgsejO2Zoncifpwp88A84HR6eFBBZ 5SmpwXNkmRUeqU+4L2O6FcV2Z5xOQy9zPyTO/VlW19jbi1I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzTLq3UqDtSrWl2xa3rkV6c7z7V9BcSb+uNq/R0nCgmnUWAaXT3ubENrNMqkOba0k5fB6BO4uswCV6NQwaNFgM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:60d:b0:42f:ac38:af75 with SMTP id n13-20020a056402060d00b0042fac38af75mr12037667edv.203.1655295201505; Wed, 15 Jun 2022 05:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <41ba8fd6-ab16-6278-ba22-91a6a632ed33@cisco.com> <B8F7E718-28A3-4F97-A171-72774F8F1ACF@tsinghua.org.cn> <a71b7df5-4f15-a3ca-6783-3304dacd945b@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <a71b7df5-4f15-a3ca-6783-3304dacd945b@cisco.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 14:13:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMGcgP-hH6zi_7NAkfBbQoGw0Si=55XyK_uEuA76TuGJ7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
Cc: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>, "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>, lsr <lsr@ietf.org>, draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix@ietf.org, draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007c0a1705e17b72cc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/vWkFLAgL9IHQA5FC54d9b0VMbM0>
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: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 12:13:27 -0000

Peter,

the meaning of LSInfinity has been defined decades ago. No matter how
>
much you may not like it, but it means unreachable.


True. But that brings another question ... Do you envision to use UPA also
to indicate planned maintenance of a node ?

Thx,
R.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email