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 multi-homing is normalized and easy to
plan.
draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05
automatically calculates active/standby VPN protection relationships based on
the primary and secondary VPN SIDs carried by the data plane. It is applicable
to the scenario where the CE multi-homing relationship is complex.
· Technical merits and drawbacks of each solution
---- draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-16 features low SRv6
encapsulation overhead, but requires manual planning of SRv6 protection
relationships.
Advantages of
draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05: The SRv6 protection
relationship is automatically generated. No manual planning is
required.Disadvantages: An extra VPN SID needs to be encapsulated on the data
plane.，SRv6 Best Effort scenario SRH encapsulation is required.
I support the adoption of this draft as a co-author .
Thanks
Zhibo
From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 3:30 AM
To: RTGWG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; rtgwg-chairs
<[email protected]>; draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection
<[email protected]>
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/>
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/>
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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
