Hi Yingzhen & WG，
I support the adoption of this draft.
[draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05] is easy to implement,
and it's simple to deploy.
The replies to several questions are as follows:
• Do we need these different solutions?
----Yes. They are suitable for different scenarios.
• Technical merits and drawbacks of each solution.
【draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-16】: Requires control plane
extension and Mirror SID extension, does not require ingress node awareness.
【draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05】:
----Drawbacks: Due to backup SID as SL [0], implementing this solution
may affect the actual support capability of MSD (maximum SID depth), but this
impact may be ignored when supporting SRH compression.
----Merits: The backup egress PE is determined based on the routing
optimization strategy and can be dynamically adjusted according to topology
changes. So it's more flexible.
• If there is any implementation of the proposals, please voice it.
----Ruijie Networks has completed a simple prototype verification of egress
protection forwarding processes for
draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05.
Best Wishes,
Yanrong
Original
From: rtgwg <rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org><<rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf
Of Yingzhen Qu
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 3:30 AM
To: RTGWG <rt...@ietf.org><<rt...@ietf.org>>; spring@ietf.org;
rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org><<rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org>>;
draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection
<draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protect...@ietf.org><<draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protect...@ietf.org>>
Subject: WG Adoption Call - draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection
(02/09/24 - 02/24/24)
Hi,
This email begins a 2 week WG adoption poll for the following draft:
draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05 - SRv6 Egress Protection
in Multi-homed scenario
(ietf.org)<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection/><http://ietf.org)%3Chttps//datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection/%3E>
Please review the document and indicate your support or objections by Feb 24th,
2024.
Please note that there is an existing WG
document:draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-16 - SRv6 Path Egress
Protection<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection/><http://protection%3Chttps//datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection/%3E>
Which proposes fast protections for the egress node and link of an SRv6 path
through extending IGP and using Mirror SID. As you discuss adopting
draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection, please also consider:
· Do we need these different solutions?
· Technical merits and drawbacks of each solution
· If there is any implementation of the proposals, please voice it.
Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR
that applies to the draft.
Also copying SPRING WG.
Thanks,
Yingzhen (RTGWG Co-chair)
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
