IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"zhuyq-ietf2024@foxmail.com" <zhuyq-ietf2024@foxmail.com> Wed, 07 August 2024 06:18 UTC

Return-Path: <zhuyq-ietf2024@foxmail.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 BD1EEC151089 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 23:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.08
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.08 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=1.951, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, 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=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=foxmail.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 XdaXQ81XOmUw for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 23:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out203-205-221-240.mail.qq.com (out203-205-221-240.mail.qq.com [203.205.221.240]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADBACC14F69D for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2024 23:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foxmail.com; s=s201512; t=1723011521; bh=eTe9LDoRv8LLnM+dITbmHJYWy6PrgM2qLG7oOj04+XU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References; b=O0dlXFzRXy+j6U2iADO6bZBWW4lglAcahpk7tNQhlMiLmIhq4rQlfgsLSSy98ZyV7 QRGR+i1rI5pfgi5rcGplBYLDLuLhvfigsrs+f99rVHPSIGRYExXUnUb4TWCqdF0Hp8 GQ5i4vRQJFOH8dWteYJ7MiRVUsnBLkT98j4C48l0=
Received: from LAPTOP-62COFCP0 ([61.144.66.67]) by newxmesmtplogicsvrsza10-0.qq.com (NewEsmtp) with SMTP id 4A81425C; Wed, 07 Aug 2024 14:18:40 +0800
X-QQ-mid: xmsmtpt1723011520tppdc3sso
Message-ID: <tencent_EB1DFE7375C3FE96131B021A639EFB170308@qq.com>
X-QQ-XMAILINFO: M/NR0wiIuy70YqhtwapuIz/uDeZ/VkSKhT/Q/ASdIMykhkEru8noBWttxVB9pm 94g8123oxAZPLRy1FRE+aFYZMqJ11kNoLg2y190nmVLMGg8TZk7w0LGOEqnz1dt1EKNSrA692NJr M52Lu+CrcUaUYtrBwayjqIkRNqB+lliscR0X3cdezeqzLudgTjT9AmC3DytjSRgLokrqaG9AHItM +fRWATnBWJ0y6KI8jbUFjn3CLenps5cQriHeJwgZCAMrNDbKu/9C5iS1gzHeRcsKHpechhoUapUj x6uwDEV0orepgyZkIIQdkwvmH8R86/QVy/mZgYXcVrUtlB0QrlEnz9zQDWJeGtH8E61IZzWa/VX4 Vel97uKnKN/RXwEozaMKP6Eq3FKBAyh5dUN8PxWLw257S33THeDpUaBPMR2rVAoUluT6udQ1ou5W 6n0UwjxUDdjvDFtOHELsERIHnB/VZ4Fkadso9+Dekq6RHMqP4jSXDTVsRnGXULAoZJ4U+CLiiqNB oVyc7OiR1KqlnCQzKhnN/fQsEA4zrejjCNcwAH8J/oag0AWop08sXuyrgq3y1OlLL+DslKAVFOGk KUTj5MML4vkLVTGN6FAa9fvFCcwX9G/Hlgrul3ChC9CwdEUkaifgkDcrIuEz1vsAafUDgdsRqBR+ yQFErNTfjhxlVj91Fg5ZYOT4GXI/wkTY/jPy/R/9i2PMUMa0h2ma3xYkJzq/PkBop+nn5tTbJu8B NSraY1vEndRM8xr3RALDuJMk4aq4WilVlGOLvYLljs3w+tvTw5TBeuLlv5A/EyhJX06sSbOAYXOb UMyYRXY33BkR1purIHoBeeDj+WHr26izUUBL5wh9wR5QQNru3etXQNII30P2fwMxoGsjkg+0Mem7 sEcFYXh9ivwuZhFwKV0AiAlood+pi/5LL175rsSJqQglaRT429HSdakuvbjTcuD0vLHbQ4YnRFI5 fqIS0tStT+fH1mqQW7f8obhLdtE2w0PpvxLSmIjj0ZbbMGwlPBfL3bfI5FMX6jMewgViIppyoupj j9p4FRS/epiD5+pn3FHWYxkfsOM0o=
X-QQ-XMRINFO: NyFYKkN4Ny6FSmKK/uo/jdU=
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 14:18:33 +0800
From: "zhuyq-ietf2024@foxmail.com" <zhuyq-ietf2024@foxmail.com>
To: shares <shares@ndzh.com>, idr <idr@ietf.org>
References: <SJ0PR08MB66220668F30E8B89E4C697C2B3B32@SJ0PR08MB6622.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 1AED5259-2F4D-411E-B593-499B2B31912C
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.25.259[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-OQ-MSGID: <2024080714183193965790@foxmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart216515688310_=----"
Message-ID-Hash: W6IRGUTFD33PWQIHV2OKF34T77DFPVOT
X-Message-ID-Hash: W6IRGUTFD33PWQIHV2OKF34T77DFPVOT
X-MailFrom: zhuyq-ietf2024@foxmail.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
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/LukpolW6RizXwteitmN0WjvhkT4>
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 WG adoption of this draft. It discusses the operation of BGP and the announcement of member port SIDs within an L2 bundle, is very helpful. 
My thoughts on the questions are>
1. Does this BGP-LS addition help SR Egress Peering points in operationlal 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.
Thanks.
B.R.
Yongqing Zhu
China Telecom



zhuyq-ietf2024@foxmail.com
 
From: Susan Hares
Date: 2024-08-02 22:11
To: 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