I support this draft as experimental track. Thanks
Gyan On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 4:10 PM Acee Lindem (acee) <acee= 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Speaking as WG member: > > I support WG adoption of this draft on the experimental track. I think it > is better for the WG to move forward and get some data points on these > competing solutions than to be gridlocked. > > I'm not that concerned with the tunneling requirement for L1/L2 routers > given that this can be accomplished very easily with segment routing (e.g.., > as in TI-LFA). > > One technical comment: > > If the client has a direct L2 adjacency with the flood reflector it > SHOULD > use it instead of instantiating a new tunnel. > > Perhaps this would be clearer: > > If the client has a direct L1 adjacency with the flood reflector it > SHOULD > not instantiate a tunnel for the L2 flooding reflector adjacency. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > On 6/10/20, 3:29 PM, "Christian Hopps" <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: > > This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection > > The draft would be adopted on the Experimental track. > > Please indicate your support or objection by June 24, 2020. > > Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware > of any IPR that applies to this draft. > > Thanks, > Chris and Acee. > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
