My only concern with the time sync approach is that it imposes the requirement for some kind of time sync protocol (either ntp or ptp). From what I understand, running these in the data center is not that common.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:19 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi WG, > > > > Just as a reminder, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery currently > proposes two options: 1) use time synchronization, 2) Use handshake. > > > > We have issues moving forward the draft because of some controversy on the > handshake option while the time sync option seems to have implementations. > > > > It seems that the authors/co-authors agreed to progress the document by > removing the handshake option, leaving the “time sync” as the core of the > document. > > > > As the document is a WG document, we (chairs) need to confirm that there > is no objection from the WG progressing the document in such a way. > > > > Please provide your feedback. > > > > We are opening a poll starting today and ending on **** 18th June **** to > gather feedbacks. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Stephane > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery/ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
