Hi, As about how to implement inter-domain SAVNET mechanism, it seems that we have several choices, namely, adding a new SAFI, adding a new message type, or implementing a new protocol other than BGP.
We think the final choice depends on how much overlap there is between BGP protocol messages and the SAV messages. To enable this kind of inter-domain SAV functionality, It is inevitable to introduce additional overhead. But generally we think the cost of adding a new SAFI < the cost of adding a new message type < the cost of introducing a new protocol. Best, Lancheng > -----原始邮件----- > 发件人: [email protected] > 发送时间: 2022-05-06 21:24:02 (星期五) > 收件人: "'Robert Raszuk'" <[email protected]> > 抄送: 'Xingang' <[email protected]>, "'Lancheng Qin'" <[email protected]>, [email protected], 'RTGWG' <[email protected]> > 主题: RE: [savnet] Regarding reusing existing routing protocols for SAV//RE: SAVNET WG charter > > > > My take is that if existing RFC8955 does not provide a sufficient > > placeholder to propagate SAV data it should be transported outside of > > BGP entirely. > > I would prefer this information be transported outside BGP entirely, but _if_ it's going to be transported in BGP, please let's do it in a way that reduces the load on existing BGP implementations to a minimum. > > The amount of churn represented by this kind of work is probably going to warrant some new way of managing this information anyway. > > 😊 /r </[email protected]></[email protected]></[email protected]></[email protected]> _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
