Re: [Idr] 2 week WG adoption call for draft-previdi-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-03 (5/31 to 6/14)

[<[e-mail]>]

> From: Acee Lindem (acee)
> I support IDR working group adoption. I reviewed the document and believe it provides a useful functionality in controller-based deployments and particularly when BGP is used in lieu of an IGP, i.e., https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-02.txt.

+1

I admit I haven’t had time to really review the doc in detail, but I’ll try one comment, just in case it may be useful.
Regarding Peer Adj Segment, in theory couldn’t we have:
- 2 different BGP peers having the same private AS number and the same BGP Router ID?
- un-numbered external interfaces

In which case I’m not sure how those 2 peer adj segment would be distinguished, nor how the related to the Peer SID be identified. One option may be to add the related Peer-SID in Peer Adjacency SID.

/Bruno


From: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 3:31 PM
To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]
Cc: Keyur Patel (keyupate); [e-mail]; Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week WG adoption call for draft-previdi-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-03 (5/31 to 6/14)

I support IDR working group adoption. I reviewed the document and believe it provides a useful functionality in controller-based deployments and particularly when BGP is used in lieu of an IGP, i.e., https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-02.txt.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 11:26 PM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Keyur Patel (keyupate)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Idr] 2 week WG adoption call for draft-previdi-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-03 (5/31 to 6/14)

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-previdi-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-03.txt.  The authors (Stefano, Clarence, Saikat, Keyur, Mach and Jie) should indicate if they know if any IPR.  The draft can be found at:

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

In the discussion, please consider:

a)      Does this addition to BGP-LS for exporting BGP egress point topologies provides useful information for BGP deployments in the internet,

b)      Are there scaling issues in adding this information to BGP-LS, and

c)       The technical merits and issues with this proposal.

Susan Hares and John Scudder


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.