IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

汪江波 <federationcn@163.com> Wed, 07 August 2024 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <federationcn@163.com>
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 7B6F9C15155B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2024 02:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L3=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, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=163.com
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 4guUsYhIlqMr for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2024 02:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m16.mail.163.com (m16.mail.163.com [117.135.210.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC765C14F698 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2024 02:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=163.com; s=s110527; h=Date:From:Subject:Content-Type:MIME-Version: Message-ID; bh=eQTxeTjPgomgu/lXiDLMJCnloGp9YLMLnohmquGt70E=; b=M ABPOkVfY2hgfR9geD5heDporxVmlzxjsUNBk+x05j8f1XAahp8HllPPGvOpwNHvZ ee46rVk9syIQhYGZvTamqAT8He79uOckBhY7nXMlBZfUUmyeH6IlDmjZWmg1uWxT Ne9KO6H4WLaQSSkPnbThsRbTUn++sWEwdDTN6NYkoA=
Received: from federationcn$163.com ( [117.128.51.72] ) by ajax-webmail-wzpm-k8s-gz (Coremail) ; Wed, 7 Aug 2024 17:20:50 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
X-Originating-IP: [117.128.51.72]
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 17:20:50 +0800
From: 汪江波 <federationcn@163.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Coremail Webmail Server Version 2023.1-cmXT build 20230828(bca80109) MailMasterIOS/7.19.6.2078_(17.5.1) Copyright (c) 2002-2024 www.mailtech.cn 163com
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR08MB66220668F30E8B89E4C697C2B3B32@SJ0PR08MB6622.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <SJ0PR08MB66220668F30E8B89E4C697C2B3B32@SJ0PR08MB6622.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
X-CM-CTRLMSGS: cKqn6HRyYWNlQXR0Q250PTA=
X-NTES-SC: AL_Qu2ZAfyZvUwu5iWeYekZnEsWj+05Wcewu/kg2Y9fPJs0myPE4QcOVmBoG3LEy/6EDSCCrwe6eR9V9cFDc6V0doK0nCRaUhGjf1LUB7itBnL2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_266894_1272238878.1723022450579"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <530a10db.10804.1912c241f93.Coremail.federationcn@163.com>
X-Coremail-Locale: zh_CN
X-CM-TRANSID: _____wD3v4ByPLNmcwMEAA--.25838W
X-CM-SenderInfo: pihgv2pdwl00lfq6il2tof0z/1tbiRQM03WXAoD7zHwABs5
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1U5529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7vcSsGvfC2KfnxnUU==
Message-ID-Hash: CKYZZJ3XG4VKZXC7R5XESTO75OCX2F2H
X-Message-ID-Hash: CKYZZJ3XG4VKZXC7R5XESTO75OCX2F2H
X-MailFrom: federationcn@163.com
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
CC: "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
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/75_Ix10z5V8eQIbgoTOAArzF4rE>
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,

 

I support the adoption of this draft.
It is necessary for BGP to operate within an L2 bundle, as this facilitates cross-domain traffic scheduling.

 

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?

Yes

3. Are there any problems in the technology described? 

No

 

Best Regards,
Job wang.
---- Replied Message ----
| From | Susan Hares<shares@ndzh.com> |
| Date | 08/02/2024 22:11 |
| To | idr@ietf.org<idr@ietf.org> |
| 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/

 

 

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