Hi,
The followings are the responses for the comments on PUAM draft( <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-08> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-prefix-unreachable-annoucement-08) Les: The comment I want to make, I think the discussion on the list highlighted the fact that there's an open question, independent of whether we use the prefix unreachable draft or the Event Notification draft, as to whether this problem should be solved by the IGP or whether it should be solved by BGP, or in some other way. And I think the logical way to proceed on this is to get the consensus of the working group as to whether an IGP solution is desired first, then after we reach consensus on that, then we can start talking about which approach is the better approach. Which one should be adopted? 【WAJ】The problem is occurred due to the summary action by the ABR router in IGP, it should be solved by IGP itself. As discussed earlier on the list, the possible use case is not limited to BGP fast convergence. Based on the above considerations, it is not appropriated solved via BGP. Chris H: Chair hat on. You've been asking for adoption for a while. The event notification draft is new. I agree with Les that in a perfect world that would be the case, but asking for adoption is one way to answer the question. It may be not the perfect way to answer that question, but it is one way. I agree without my chair hat on, I'm not sure we need this, but it's not for me to say by fiat. Acee did put something out on the list to try to engage people again. And I don't think a lot got said. 【WAJ】we have several round discussions for this topic but there is always no conclusion at the end. Can the expert that reluctant to accept the new idea to give some specific questions/problems for the current solution? Or else it is not helpful for the solve of the existing problem. Initiate the adoption call maybe the best way to let the experts express their opinions? We would like to hear the specific and detail comments for the current solutions, not just general comments. Acee: I didn't see much support other than from the authors. I saw one non-author support on the event notification. 【WAJ】Does anyone not agree what we analyze/summarize at the presentation material for the two solutions? (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/slides-112-lsr-05-puam-stublink-00.pdf, the 5th slide) Chris: Everyone has a right to ask for an adoption. Everyone has a right to say we shouldn't adopt this and there are the reasons. We've let people to express opinions, without seeing a lot of negative opinions it's hard not to just grant the adoption call. 【WAJ】I agree. Tony P: I think this is all making a trash can out of the IGP. One possible solution is to ban or encouraged maybe everyone with these kind of suggestions to go towards the service instance stuff or whatever we call it, which I think is a good idea. Just run a power line up and much lower priority. Don't trash the main protocol that holds the whole thing together. 【WAJ】Do you consider the deployment complexity for independent service instance to transfer such thing? And also the interaction on the device among the main IGP instance and the service instances? It’s the fault of the main protocol, and should be solved by the main protocol. Chris: Great comment for the adoption call. As a WG member, I agree. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 2:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Lsr] IETF 112 LSR Meeting Minutes The IETF 112 LSR Meeting Minutes have been uploaded. Thanks to Yingzhen Qu for taking them!!! https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/minutes-112-lsr-00 The IETF 112 LSR Meeting MeetEcho recording is available here: https://play.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/?session=IETF112-LSR-20211111-1200 Thanks, Acee
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
