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

[霍朋飞 <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sue,
I support WG adoption.
I reviewed this document, and it is very helpful for the deployment of
cross-domain L2 Bundles.
1. Does this BGP-LS addition help SR Egress Peering points in operational
networks?
Yes.
2.Does this draft handle the BUM traffic in a way that Prevents looping?
This document focuses on how BGP EPE advertises Peer Adj-SIDs on L2 Bundle
member ports,
and the existing loop mechanisms apply to this document.
3.Are there any problems in the technology described?
I have not seen any problems yet.

Best Regards,  Pengfei
From: "Hongwei Li"<[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, Aug 9, 2024, 10:47
Subject: [External] [Idr] Re: WG adoption call for
draft-lin-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-07 (8/2 to 8/16)
To: <[e-mail]>
Hi All,
I read the draft and support the WG adoption.


   1. Does this BGP-LS addition help SR Egress Peering points

in operational networks?
//Yes, straight forward.

   2. Does this draft handle the BUM traffic in a way that

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

   3. Are there any problems in the technology described?
   // No.


Thanks,
Hongwei



*From:* Susan Hares <[e-mail]>
*Sent:* Friday, August 2, 2024 10:12 PM
*To:* [e-mail]
*Subject:* [Idr] WG adoption call for draft-lin-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-07
(8/2 to 8/16)



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/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lin-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle/>
Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering over Layer 2 Bundle Members
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lin-idr-sr-epe-over-l2bundle/>
There are deployments where the Layer 3 interface on which a BGP peer
session is established is a Layer 2 interface bundle. In order to allow
BGP-EPE to control traffic flows on individual member links of the
underlying Layer 2 bundle, BGP Peering SIDs need to be allocated to
individual bundle member links, and advertisement of such BGP Peering SIDs
in BGP-LS is required. 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. This document updates [RFC9085] and [RFC9086] to allow the
PeerAdj SID TLV to be included as a sub-TLV of the L2 Bundle Member
Attributes TLV.
datatracker.ietf.org





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



   1. Does this BGP-LS addition help SR Egress Peering points

in operational networks?

   2. Does this draft handle the BUM traffic in a way that

Prevents looping?

(Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast (BUM))

   3. Are there any problems in the technology described?



Cheerily, Sue Hares