Thanks for the clarification Peter! Paul
On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 5:58 AM Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > please se inline: > > On 25/09/2025 04:38, Paul Wouters via Datatracker wrote: > > Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-10: No Objection > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Are there any operational considerations worth mentioning in the > document? > I believe we mentioned the ones that exists in the appropriate sections > - 3.3, 4.3, 5, 6, > > Would setting the UP flag cause other properly implemented systems not > > supporting the flag to change behaviour? > > absolutely not. All routers understand the "unreachable" metric that we > use for UPA because such metric is part of the base protocol specification. > As a result, all routers, regardless whether they understand the new > flags or not, will ignore UPA advertisement during the route calculation. > > Routers that understand the new flags and are configured to use them > will do so on top. > > thanks, > Peter > > > I assume this would not be the case > > and that is why no operational considerations were added? > > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
