On 26/05/2025 03:29, Aijun Wang wrote:

Then one new deficiency for the mechanism is emerging:

The lack of the Explicit Withdrawn Signal(EWS) when the prefix is reachable again.

Please note, stop sending the UPA message doesn’t mean the prefix is reachable again.

If there is no EWS, then the network can’t back to its original state before the UPA signaling when the reachable of prefix recover.

there is still a summary that covers the prefix reachability.

Peter


Best Regards

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

*发件人:*Peter Psenak [mailto:[email protected]]
*发送时间:*2025年5月23日19:11
*收件人:*Aijun Wang <[email protected]>
*抄送:*[email protected]
*主题:*Re: [Lsr] Re: 答复: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06.txt

On 23/05/2025 12:48, Aijun Wang wrote:

    Then nothing needs to be standardized when the prefix becomes
    reachable again.

    1) In some critical scenarios, when the ABR sends one UPA message
    out and the prefix becomes reachable immediately, what the ABR can
    do is to stop advertising UPA.

and that is exactly what the text says.

Peter

    The sent UPA message will eventually trigger the action on the
    receiver, even the prefix is reachable immediately.

    2) In normal situations, the ABR sends the UPA message for some
    time and stop sending it further. At this time, when the prefix
    becomes reachable, nothing needs to be done at ABR.

    The receiver will also act on the UPA signaling.

    It’s irrelevant then whether the prefix is reachable or not after
    the UPA signaling is sent out.

    Aijun Wang

    China Telecom



        On May 23, 2025, at 17:18, Peter Psenak <[email protected]>
        <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:

        On 23/05/2025 10:10, Aijun Wang wrote:

            Then, what’s the differences between the two statements:

        first is for case when the prefix reachability is not regained
        after UPA was generated.

        Second is when the prefix reachability was regained before the
        UPA was withdrawn. It basically says UPA must be  withdrawn at
        the time the prefix becomes reachable.

            “UPA advertisements SHOULD therefore be withdrawn after
            some amount of time, that would provides sufficient time
            for UPA to be flooded network-wide and acted upon by
            receiving nodes, but limits the presence of UPA in the
            network.”

            And:

            “ABR or ASBR MUST withdraw the previously advertised UPA
            when the reason for which the UPA was generated was lost -
            e.g. prefix reachability was restored or its metric has
            changed such that it does not represent the protocol
            specific maximum prefix metric.”

            Here, does “withdraw”just mean to “stop advertisement”?

        yes.

        Peter

            If no, what’s the mechanism of second “withdraw”?

            Best Regards

            Aijun Wang

            China Telecom

            *发件人:*[email protected]
            
<mailto:[email protected]>[mailto:[email protected]
            <mailto:[email protected]>] *代表 *Peter Psenak
            *发送时间:*2025年5月23日14:55
            *收件人:*Aijun Wang <[email protected]>
            <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
            <mailto:[email protected]>
            *主题:*[Lsr] Re: 答复: I-D Action:
            draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06.txt

            On 23/05/2025 03:32, Aijun Wang wrote:

                Hi, All:

                I must point out that the updated draft doesn't
                address previous issues that described in [1].

                Especially, the activation of flawed LSInfinity
                feature(there is detail analysis for this flawed
                feature that is defined in OSPF 2328).

                And, some updated contents will deteriorate the
                traffic pattern within the network.

                For example, It says: “ABR or ASBR MUST withdraw the
                previously advertised UPA when the reason for which
                the UPA was generated was lost”.

                The above requirement will advertise the specific
                prefixes within the network, which will weaken the
                original summary effect, and attract the traffic via
                one or some of ABRs.

            no, above is not true, the new text does not say to
            advertise reachablity for a summarized prefix, it only
            talks about removing the previously advertised UPA.

            Please read carefully before commenting.

            Peter

                [1]: Reasons of abandoning UPA:
                
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-reasons-of-abandon-upa-proposal/

                Best Regards

                Aijun Wang

                China Telecom

                -----邮件原件-----
                发件人: [email protected]
                [mailto:[email protected]
                <mailto:[email protected]>] 代表
                [email protected]
                发送时间: 2025年5月22日21:20
                收件人: [email protected]
                抄送: [email protected]
                主题: [Lsr] I-D Action:
                draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06.txt

                Internet-Draft
                draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06.txt is
                now available. It is a work item of the Link State
                Routing (LSR) WG of the IETF.

                Title:   IGP Unreachable Prefix Announcement

                Authors: Peter Psenak

                Clarence Filsfils

                        Daniel Voyer

                Shraddha Hegde

                Gyan Mishra

                Name: draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06.txt

                Pages:   14

                Dates:   2025-05-22

                Abstract:

                   In the presence of summarization, there is a need
                to signal loss of

                reachability to an individual prefix covered by the
                summary.  This

                enables fast convergence by steering traffic away from
                the node which

                   owns the prefix and is no longer reachable.

                   This document describes how to use the existing
                protocol mechanisms

                   in IS-IS and OSPF, together with the two new flags,
                to advertise such

                   prefix reachability loss.

                The IETF datatracker status page for this
                Internet-Draft is:

                
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/
                
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/>

                There is also an HTMLized version available at:

                
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06
                
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06>

                A diff from the previous version is available at:

                
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06
                
<https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-06>

                Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:

                rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts

                _______________________________________________

                Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

                To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
                <mailto:[email protected]>

        _______________________________________________
        Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
        To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to