Re: [Lsr] Comments on draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement

+1

Sent from my iPhone

> On 27.07.2022, at 23:39, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> (Preamble: All of what I am going to say I have said many times before – on the list – off the list – in private conversations – in WG meetings…
> I don’t say this to start a discussion with the WG authors – it seems clear that we don’t agree and have no path to agreement.
> My purpose in saying this is to respond to the ongoing existence of this draft and offering my opinion as to what action the WG should take.)
>  
> The mechanism defined in this draft is broken. Not only is it not backwards compatible – the PUA advertisements will be misinterpreted to mean the exact opposite of what is intended i.e., the intent is to signal that a prefix is unreachable, but you do so by using an advertisement which legacy nodes MUST interpret as meaning reachable. This is simply broken and should not be done.
>  
> The authors deserve credit for bringing the attention of the WG to the problem space – but the solution offered is not deployable. Given the long period of time during which this draft has been published and the many times it has been presented/discussed in the WG I think it is now time to say thank you to the authors for their work, but the WG is not interested in adopting this draft.
>  
>    Les
>  
>  
> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar
> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 1:36 AM
> To: draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Lsr] Comments on draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement
>  
> Hello Authors,
>  
> I am sharing some comments on the latest version of this document since we seem to have a packed agenda in LSR this time.
>  
> 1) I notice that in the latest update of the draft, there is a big change to start using LSInfinity for indicating prefix unreachability (similar to draft-ppsenak-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce). I see this as a sign of a degree of convergence between the two drafts.
>  
> 2) However, I then question the motivation of the authors to continue with the bad design of overloading Prefix Originator and the added capability stuff on top. I don't wish to repeat why that design was an absolute NO-GO for me and I am glad to see the authors acknowledge the problem with misrouting by implementations not supporting this specification. So I don't see the point of still retaining all that. 
>  
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr