[Last-Call] Re: [Lsr] Re: draft-ietf-lsr-igp-ureach-prefix-announce-08 ietf last call Genart review

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Trim the unrelated contents, to reflect the key confusion:

According to the following responses, the newly defined u/up flag is optional, and they indicate the “the reason why the unreachability was advertised”
 
Then, if only the “U”flag is attached, what’s the reason for the unreachability?
 
 
 
If I am correct, you want to define a term like "the protocol specific
way of specifying unreachability".  Then you want to state early in
the document something like
 
    A router that implements UPA MUST attach the U-bit to any
    announcement that contains the protocol specific way of specifying
    unreachability.  Conversely, any announcement with the U-bit MUST also
    include the protocol specific way of specifying unreachability.

##PP
advertisement of the prefix unreachability has been defined in the past and we
are not allowed to change it, as that would result in a backward compatibility issue.
So we can not mandate any new-bit for signaling the unreachability. We are just
indicating with the optional new flags the reason why the unreachbaility was advertised.

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux