Ok, I was simply trying to avoid beating a dead horse. Nothing about this discussion or this document is ’new’.
I object because this information does not belong in the IGP. This is being used as a mechanism to propagate unreachabie more specifics. I grant that this is an important function for VPN termination, but I again suggest that this not be part of the IGP. Other solutions have been discussed. I can enumerate if that’s helpful. The dynamics of the situation are poor in that failures cause an increase in state propagation, which seems very dangerous. I don’t believe that filibustering is appropriate professional behavior in this forum, so I’ll shut up now. Regards, T > On Apr 21, 2025, at 9:31 AM, Acee Lindem - acee.ietf at gmail.com > <mailforwa...@cloudmails.net> wrote: > > Speaking as Co-Chair: > > This is a new WG publication poll so please state your technical concerns. > > Don't expect anyone to remember or search what you said in the past. > > Thanks, > Acee > > >> On Apr 17, 2025, at 2:13 PM, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This email begins a 2 week WG Last Call for the following draft: >> IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/ >> >> Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by May >> 2nd, 2025. >> >> Authors and contributors, >> Please indicate to the list your knowledge of any IPR related to this work. >> >> Thanks, >> Yingzhen > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
