Dear WG,
I reviewed both drafts and support the adoption of this draft, because I think
the new solution would help improve the robustness in the case of egress node
failure.
Best,
Lancheng
-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"Yingzhen Qu" <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com>
发送时间:2024-02-10 03:30:18 (星期六)
收件人: RTGWG <rt...@ietf.org>, spring@ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs
<rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org>, draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection
<draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protect...@ietf.org>
主题: 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) 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 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
