Anoop, This approach is optional. The intent here is to remove “a” handshake mechanism which is too complex and not always working. Other people may come with different solution in the future if needed be.
Regards, Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer Cisco Systems http://e-vpn.io http://go2.cisco.com/evpn From: BESS <[email protected]> on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 12:45 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, BESS <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [bess] WG POLL: Moving forward draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery by dropping "Handshake" option 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
