Hi Sami, Yes, BUM is out of scope – Sasha already raised this question and it looks like I forgot to add the clarifying statement. I will in next rev.
* IMHO and FWIW an explicit statement that “BUM is not in-scope of the draft, it is not redirected” would help the readers. It would also help to clarify that bypassing DF Election behavior is not relevant for All-Active and Single Flow-Active redundancy modes. You are correct on the DF-bypass redundancy modes; However for the draft itself I am not typing specific behaviours to load-balancing modes: Backup-DF blocking is bypassed if/when applicable. Regards, Luc André Luc André Burdet | Cisco | laburdet.i...@gmail.com | Tel: +1 613 254 4814 From: Boutros, Sami <sboutros=40ciena....@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Thursday, October 24, 2024 at 11:21 To: BESS <bess@ietf.org> Subject: [bess] Few questions about https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-burdet-bess-evpn-fast-reroute-08.txt Hi, It is not clear in the draft, if you are redirecting BUM traffic or not? I assume you are not redirecting BUM traffic. In what redundancy mode will you need to override the DF election? Is it only for single active and port active? Thanks, Sami
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
