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:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 3:30 AM
To: 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>
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
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to