IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Idr] Re: WG adoption call for draft-lin-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-07 (8/2 to 8/16)

chen.ran@zte.com.cn Tue, 06 August 2024 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7E1C14F71E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2024 20:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ixhbvvD1nxXI for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2024 20:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF5C1C14F738 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2024 20:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4WdJDK4k7Qz8XrS9; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 11:08:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app08.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.206]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 47638bhU097506; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 11:08:37 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app07[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 11:08:39 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 11:08:39 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2aff66b193b73d2-a6773
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20240806110839256Hhy2wVu3LmyOU_pD1Gx8x@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR08MB66220668F30E8B89E4C697C2B3B32@SJ0PR08MB6622.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: SJ0PR08MB66220668F30E8B89E4C697C2B3B32@SJ0PR08MB6622.namprd08.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
To: shares@ndzh.com, idr@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 47638bhU097506
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 66B193C1.005/4WdJDK4k7Qz8XrS9
Message-ID-Hash: DKLH3KGESCF4P2ZCORBEC7FD6CMR7TTZ
X-Message-ID-Hash: DKLH3KGESCF4P2ZCORBEC7FD6CMR7TTZ
X-MailFrom: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-idr.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Idr] Re: WG adoption call for draft-lin-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-07 (8/2 to 8/16)
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/2wz942ccknattDu-IJ4lqrjmPeA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:idr-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:idr-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:idr-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Sue and WG,

I support the adoption of this draft.  Please see below for answers to related questions.

Does this BGP-LS addition help SR Egress Peering points in operational networks?  


         Yes.

Does this draft handle the BUM traffic in a way that Prevents looping? (Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM))

         Yes. This document does not define any new looping mechanisms., and the existing looping mechanisms works for this document.

Are there any problems in the technology described?
No.

Best Regards,
Ran



Original


From: SusanHares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: idr@ietf.org <idr@ietf.org>;
Date: 2024年08月02日 22:12
Subject: [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-lin-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-07 (8/2 to 8/16)

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list -- idr@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to idr-leave@ietf.org
 

IDR WG: 
 
This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for  
draft-lin-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-07.txt
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lin-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle/
 
 
The authors should reply to this email with an 
IPR statement indicating whether they know of an intellectual property. 
 
This document describes how to support Segment Routing 
BGP Egress Peer Engineering over Layer 2 bundle members. 
This document updates [RFC9085] to allow the L2 Bundle Member 
Attributes TLV to be added to the BGP-LS Attribute
associated with the Link NLRI of BGP peering link.
 
 
In your comments regarding adoption,  please consider 
 

Does this BGP-LS addition help SR Egress Peering points


in operational networks?  

Does this draft handle the BUM traffic in a way that 


Prevents looping?
(Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM))

Are there any problems in the technology described? 


 
Cheerily, Sue Hares

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status