I keep reading the description of the handling of unknown endpoint
behaviors.
It seems there is an implicit assumption that I would think it would be
helpful to make explicit. As far as I can tell, a head end would never
choose based purely based on local policy to make use of an advertised
SID with an unknown behavior? However, a head end might use such a ISD,
without knowing what it was really asking, if so instructed by a policy
engine (e.g. SR Policy)?
Yours,
Joel
On 3/19/2022 11:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.
Title : SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services
Authors : Gaurav Dawra
Clarence Filsfils
Ketan Talaulikar
Robert Raszuk
Bruno Decraene
Shunwan Zhuang
Jorge Rabadan
Filename : draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13.txt
Pages : 34
Date : 2022-03-19
Abstract:
This document defines procedures and messages for SRv6-based BGP
services including L3VPN, EVPN, and Internet services. It builds on
RFC4364 "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)" and RFC7432
"BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN".
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/
There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-13
Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
