I support progression of the UPA draft.
It leverages an existing mechanism in the protocols to provide needed
functionality - which has been proven viable by multiple implementations.
As I have commented in the past, I do wish the definition of the flags was
modified so they were not mutually exclusive. This model leads to the inability
to add additional related flags in the future without creating a backwards
compatibility issue.
Regarding concerns expressed by other WG members as to the appropriateness and
scalability of the mechanism defined here:
I think the draft is careful in defining how the mechanism should be used so
as to avoid scalability issues. I also think no one has offered an alternative
which is more scalable.
Given IGPs already advertise reachability, summaries, and unreachability, this
mechanism is clearly an appropriate use of the IGPs.
Les
From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 11:13 AM
To: lsr <lsr@ietf.org>; lsr-chairs <lsr-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: [Lsr] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce
(4/17/2025 - 5/2/2025)
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
