Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection-01

I support this draft as experimental track.

Thanks

Gyan

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 4:10 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Speaking as WG  member:
>
> I support WG adoption of this draft on the experimental track. I think it
> is better for the WG to move forward and get some data points on these
> competing solutions than to be gridlocked.
>
> I'm not that concerned with the tunneling requirement for L1/L2 routers
> given that this can be accomplished very easily with segment routing (e.g.,
> as in TI-LFA).
>
> One technical comment:
>
>    If the client has a direct L2 adjacency with the flood reflector it
> SHOULD
>   use it instead of instantiating a new tunnel.
>
> Perhaps this would be clearer:
>
>     If the client has a direct L1 adjacency with the flood reflector it
> SHOULD
>     not instantiate a tunnel for the L2 flooding reflector adjacency.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> On 6/10/20, 3:29 PM, "Christian Hopps" <chopps@chopps.org> wrote:
>
>     This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection
>
>     The draft would be adopted on the Experimental track.
>
>     Please indicate your support or objection by June 24, 2020.
>
>     Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware
> of any IPR that applies to this draft.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Chris and Acee.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD