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

[allan michael <[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.



Regards,

Allan

On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 10:13 PM Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>    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
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>