Dear WG I reviewed both drafts which provides a completely different solution for the same problem of optimization of egress protection of the L2 VPN EVPN or L3 VPN SRv6 Service SID.
As both drafts provide completely different solutions for the same egress PE VPN SID protection problem and may both yield different results as far as link or node failover and recovery times based on vendor implementations, they should both be progressed separately as their maybe use cases where one solution maybe more applicable then the other solution and vice versa. WG adoption call draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cheng-rtgwg-srv6-multihome-egress-protection-05 This draft has IANA code point allocation of a new SRv6 PGM RFC 8986 PSD endpoint flavor for all L2 VPN EVPN and L3 VPN endpoints behaviors to accommodate having an additional Backup VPN SID Segment List (o) position in the SRH to backup the Primary VPN SiD in case of egress PE primary VPN SID failure due to PE-CE attachment circuit failure and recovery using this protected VPN SID solution. Egress protection draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-srv6-egress-protection-16 This draft provides a simplified egress protection mechanism by not protecting the entire path via 1+1 backup candidate path, providing protection of all SIDs along the path, alternatively an optimized solution in this draft using a mirror SID to protect egress PE L2 VPN EVPN or L3 VPN SRv6 Service SID. <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347* On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 2:30 PM Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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) > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rt...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
