On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:04 AM John E Drake wrote:
>
>
> *[JD] We will change the SHOULD to a MUST in sections 9.1 and 9.1.3. The
> SHOULD in sections 9.1.1, 9.2.1, and 9.3.1 are fine; there are RDs of
> other types and everything will work if they are used but type 1 is
> preferred because
Hi Reshad,
I agree with you that if in all the deployment scenarios there's always
only one node in a pair of nodes that needs to be aware of the path
continuity to the remote system, then S-BFD has an advantage compared to
"classic" RFC 5880-style BFD. I think that the use case presented in the
Hi Haibo and the Authors,
thank you for updating the draft. I've read the new version and have a
question about the use case presented in the document. There are three PEs
with two of them providing redundant access to a CE. It appears that a more
general case would be if both CEs use redundant
Hi All
As an co-author of this draft I support this draft.
Currently there is no answer for multicast in a segment routing domain,
enabling traditional multicast protocols will create an overhead which is not
acceptable.
Clean/Lean network from control point of view is the key of future
Hi,
Snipped, comments inline below,
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2022 1:17 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: BESS ; bess-cha...@ietf.org; Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) (saja...@cisco.com)
Subject:
Hi Mankamana,
I would like to request one slot:
Draft: Multicast VPN Upstream Designated Forwarder Selection
Document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-bess-mvpn-upstream-df-selection/
Speaker: Heng Wang
Time: 10 minutes
Regards,
Heng
From:
Hi Mankamana,
I would like to request one slot:
Draft:BGP MVPN in IPv6 Infrastructure Networks: Problems and
Solution Approaches
Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-duan-bess-mvpn-ipv6-infras/
