IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MBONED] MBONED WG adoption call for draft-szcl-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover

zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Mon, 14 March 2022 08:19 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 062243A1AB5 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 m-x7ZJIW_6aV for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56CAB3A1A99 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 01:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4KH8ZR0B2nz85bHd; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:18:55 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.204]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 22E8IbCd089970; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:18:37 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:18:37 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:18:37 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb622efa5d5c2c4378
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202203141618374993120@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV2j16dJiF6_3JDuoG6Se8x_Ng9NNGjL6PTZ9MMXV1R61Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: 8a58d44c-4cfa-1ebf-bb9f-71908b2bdae6@juniper.net, 202203140940569130966@chinamobile.com, CABNhwV2j16dJiF6_3JDuoG6Se8x_Ng9NNGjL6PTZ9MMXV1R61Q@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: hayabusagsm@gmail.com
Cc: wanghaojie@chinamobile.com, lenny=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org, mboned@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 22E8IbCd089970
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.137.novalocal with ID 622EFA6F.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1647245935/4KH8ZR0B2nz85bHd/622EFA6F.000/10.30.14.239/[10.30.14.239]/mse-fl2.zte.com.cn/<zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 622EFA6F.000/4KH8ZR0B2nz85bHd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/BNY86wZCUS8I7X1NaDY1dGprWmM>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] MBONED WG adoption call for draft-szcl-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mboned/>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 08:19:03 -0000

Hi Gyan, 
Thanks Gyan! 
The three stanby modes mentioned in RFC9026 are discussed in this draft detailedly. 
The signaling part described in this draft absolutely suitable for the BGP signaling in RFC9026.
Best regards,
Sandy


------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人：GyanMishra
收件人：wanghaojie@chinamobile.com;
抄送人：Leonard Giuliano;MBONED WG;
日 期 ：2022年03月14日 13:06
主 题 ：Re: [MBONED] MBONED WG adoption call for draft-szcl-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned


I support WG adoption.

Question for the authors if RFC 9026 MVPN Fast upstream failover helps with the redundant IR failover issue presented in the draft?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9026

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 9:48 PM wanghaojie@chinamobile.com <wanghaojie@chinamobile.com> wrote:
Hi Lenny and WG,

This draft is considerably useful, and written well. I support this adoption.

Best regards,
Haojie Wang
China Mobile
wanghaojie@chinamobile.com

From: Leonard Giuliano
Date: 2022-03-11 20:07
To: MBONED WG
Subject: [MBONED] MBONED WG adoption call for draft-szcl-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover

We would like to initiate an official call for adoption of the "Multicast
Redundant Ingress Router Failover" draft:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-szcl-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover/

Please respond on list by Mar 25 if you do/do not support adoption of this
draft in MBONED.

If you are listed as a document author, please respond to this email
whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. If you are not listed as
an author and are aware of any relevant IPR, please respond as well.

-Lenny

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
--

Gyan Mishra
Network Solutions Architect
Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
M 301 502-1347

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email