[Idr] IDR WG 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe - (2/15/2017 to 3/1/2017)

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 15 February 2017 23:39 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 8BBAD129BDB; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:39:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gvyAMHC0erL4; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:39:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CE17129BCF; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:39:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.124.244.62;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: <idr@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:34:44 -0500
Message-ID: <00f901d287e4$16ecb2f0$44c618d0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00FA_01D287BA.2E176E40"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdKH5ALnHgVYM3zURr+F4Gs1EKSVZg==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/LTwAUcIwNCx0ZvPhNhhsZ0q0-JM>
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [Idr] IDR WG 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe - (2/15/2017 to 3/1/2017)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:39:39 -0000

This begins a 2 week IDR WG last call on
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe from (2/15 to 3/1/2017)    There
are two implementations describe on the wiki at: 

https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe
%20

 

The two implementation are from  Cisco IOS-XR release 6.0.2 and Cisco Nexus
Switch N9000/N3000 platforms running NX-OS 7.0(3)I1(1) or greater.   The
authors will indicate on the list and in the wiki the following information
:

 

1)      Were these implementations separate implementations? 

2)      What were the results of the interoperability tests? 

 

This work is linked to the draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe
work in the SPRING WG. Based on the two drafts, the WG should might
consider:  

1)      Is there need for this work in deployments in networks/ 

2)      Is this technically ready for publication? 

3)      Does it fit with the spring informational draft? 

 

For the ease of reference the web references are below: 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-e
pe/

 

Sue Hares