Hi Yao, Thanks to you and your co-authors for this work.
While the implementations and deployments today use configuration knobs for this purpose, the use of capabilities exchange is certainly another option to consider. However, the capability exchange takes care of peering between implementations that are enabled for and support SRv6. We will still need the policy configuration knobs for more granular control and filtering mechanisms. So, IMHO, these mechanisms are complementary. That said, let us go through the normal WG review process and I see no issue in extending with capability exchange in a future document such as yours. Thanks, Ketan On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 12:15 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Ron and John both mentioned that leveraging the existing AFI/SAFI may > cause misunderstanding of the SRv6 service routes. > > We encountered this problem during implementation and submitted a draft > talking about this. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/ > draft-lz-bess-srv6-service-capability-02 > > One solution(if new AFI/SAFI is not defined) we proposed in the draft is > to define a new BGP capability code for for SRv6-based BGP service > capability, and then SRv6 service routes would only be exchanged between > devices that support it based on this capability. > > Do you think this is a possible solution? > > > Regards, > > Yao > > > > >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
