Hi Authors,
Please respond.
Thanks
Rajesh
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Rajesh M
Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 2:24 PM
To: Rajesh M ; dh...@cisco.com; swaag...@cisco.com;
cfils...@cisco.com; ket...@cisco.com
Cc: spr...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-02
[Exter
The implementation of Link Bandwidth in FRR uses a transitive community to
signal & perform an automatic accumulation at the AS boundary. This seems
useful as it obviates the need for additional info (configuration) at each AS
boundary to generate a new community using accumulated values.
From:
Hi All,
As per this draft, this is how resolution must work.
1)For Non Intent service Route:
if BGP next hop is not reachable return.
Resolve SRv6 Service SID for forwarding.
2)For Intent service Route (IGP Flex-Algo first then BGP CAR then SR Policy):
BGP next hop is not reachable return.
Resolv
Hi Authors,
Please respond.
Thanks
Rajesh
Juniper Business Use Only
From: spring On Behalf Of Rajesh M
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 4:36 PM
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; gdawra.i...@gmail.com;
Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) ; rob...@raszuk.net;
bruno.decra...@orange.com; jorge.raba...@noki
Hi Rajesh,
The draft is written so that the next-hop address MAY be covered by the
locator, but there are cases in which the next-hop address is not part of the
locator prefix, and there are implementations already allowing that, so I don’t
agree the document should mandate what you are suggest
I agree with Jorge..
In fact I find the tone of the comment to be very inappropriate:
*> In case of best effort/flex algo we must mandate user to set
corresponding locator as BGP nexthop for srv6 routes.*
*No we MUST not mandate anything to the user. *
*We MUST provide flexibility to address al
Hi All,
For best effort service, flex algo - Resolve SRv6 Service SID for forwarding.
For SR-TE, CAR/CT - Resolve BGP next hop for forwarding.
There is no unification here, it's better to unify.
Any other solution is OK.
Thanks
Rajesh
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US
+1 on Jorge and Robert. I don’t think we should mandate.
Gaurav
> On Jul 19, 2021, at 6:52 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> I agree with Jorge..
>
> In fact I find the tone of the comment to be very inappropriate:
>
> > In case of best effort/flex algo we must mandate user to set correspond
Rajesh,
Also you can change the service SID for a subset of prefixes using a policy, to
apply a flex-algo for example, but you do not want to change the next-hop for
each new service SID.
Mustapha.
From: spring On Behalf Of Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
US/Mountain View)
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021
Shraddha,
> that authors don’t intend to support any form of tunnelling for SRv6
> because it is not optimal. Is that the right read?
Quite the opposite. It is the local operator's choice (not the draft
authors) to decide to fall back to best effort or to drop.
Thx,
R.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 a
10 matches
Mail list logo
