Saumya, On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 07:07:59PM +0000, Dikshit, Saumya wrote: > I support the progression of this draft. Though I have few > queries/clarifications: > > Is the definition of a link restricted to the underlay physical links or also > mapped to logical ones like TE-links mapping to a tunnel. > For example, a bandwidth tied to a VPN tunnel stitching two fabrics over WAN. > (like a multisite deployment). > > Can we clarify the definition of the “link” if it’s not implicit.
>From the first part of the draft: : The Link Bandwidth Extended Community is defined as a BGP extended community : that carries the bandwidth information of a router, represented by BGP : Protocol Next Hop, connecting to remote network. So, while the definition of a "link" is left vague in the specification, it's clear in context that it's tied to a BGP next hop. In terms of deployment use cases, it's not limited in this specification. One of the discussions overlapping the feature is that the same community can be used in-context for multiple things from underlay, to overlay, to load balancing traffic across a provider core for Internet purposes. The draft, covering primarily encoding, doesn't try to restrict the use cases. Some of the BESS discussion covering LBW covers these points along with the operational use case for things like accumulation at multipath merge points. I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with those drafts. IDR will be coordinating with BESS to figure out the long term disposition of those drafts now that the protocol component draft is moving forwarding towards publication. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
