*Accidently unicasted the previous message to Dhananjaya, replying to the group.*
Hello Dhananjaya, Can you please clarify some moments in Section 6.2? First, I don't see any sign of Section 5.1.9 (also referred to in Section 6.3.1.7) in the document. Looks like missed. I'm interested in the next scenario. Let's suppose that for a service instance (VPN or a global table) there are two ingress flows per single destination. This destination is color-marked and resolved by an intent-aware underlay. Also, there is a best-effort path as a fallback. Using per-flow steering that is based on 5-tuple IP flow is it possible to send ingress traffic from a source S1 via the intent-aware path, and ingress traffic from a source S2 via a fallback (best-effort) path at the same time? My reading of Section 6.2 shows me that it's not possible. But I strongly believe that there are cases when an intent/colored path for a distinct destination must be used only by the subset of members of service, and the same destination must be available for the rest members of the service via a best-effort path(s) only. I can show some business logic behind this if you will. Hope it helps, and thank you! сб, 16 июл. 2022 г. в 07:15, Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao) <dhrao= [email protected]>: > > > Hello BESS folks, > > > > The co-authors of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dskc-bess-bgp-car-problem-statement/ > and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hegde-spring-mpls-seamless-sr/ > have published a merged problem statement document : > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hr-spring-intentaware-routing-using-color/ > > > > We request working group to review and provide your inputs. > > > > Regards, > > -Dhananjaya (for the co-authors) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
