Speaking as WG member:
I support WG adoption of this draft on the experimental track. I think it is
better for the WG to move forward and get some data points on these competing
solutions than to be gridlocked.
I'm not that concerned with the tunneling requirement for L1/L2 routers given
that this can be accomplished very easily with segment routing (e.g., as in
TI-LFA).
One technical comment:
If the client has a direct L2 adjacency with the flood reflector it SHOULD
use it instead of instantiating a new tunnel.
Perhaps this would be clearer:
If the client has a direct L1 adjacency with the flood reflector it SHOULD
not instantiate a tunnel for the L2 flooding reflector adjacency.
Thanks,
Acee
On 6/10/20, 3:29 PM, "Christian Hopps" <[email protected]> wrote:
This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection
The draft would be adopted on the Experimental track.
Please indicate your support or objection by June 24, 2020.
Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any
IPR that applies to this draft.
Thanks,
Chris and Acee.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
