Hi wg,
This document addresses the issue of egress protection from the forwarding
perspective based on source routing, making it easier to deploy.
I support adoption.
Thanks,
Yarong
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mail
Hi wg,
This document addresses the issue of egress protection from the forwarding
perspective based on source routing, making it easier to deploy.
I support adoption.
Thanks,
Yarong
___
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mail
Just to close the loop on this... Thanks Francois for handling my comments!
Based on our offlist conversation, the following change was also agreed
upon...
OLD:
> “As examples, it could be learnt via configuration or using a signaling
> protocol."
> NEW:
> "As examples, it could be learnt via con
Hi：
I support the adoption of this draft as a co-author .
I am not aware of any IPR relevant to this draft.
The replies to several questions are as follows:
•• Do we need these different solutions?
Yes, [draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05] is suitable
for scena
Hi：
As a co-author of this two deafts.
· Do we need these different solutions?
YES，draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-16 manually plan active/standby
and VPN protection relationships. Data packet needs to carry only one VPN SID.
It is applicable to scenarios where CE
Hi,
You mentioned "verified solution", are you aware of any implementation or
deployment?
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 12:35 AM Feng Yang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Support.
>
> This is a simple, fast, verified solution for tail end protection.
> 在 2024-02-10 03:30, Yingzhen Qu 写道:
>
> Hi,
>
Hi,
Support.
This is a simple, fast, verified solution for tail end protection.
在 2024-02-10 03:30, Yingzhen Qu 写道:
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 (
