Hi， Sorry, this was an error. Please ignore this email.
BR， Haiyang 发件人: zhanghaiyang (RD) 发送时间: 2026年7月13日 14:22 收件人: 'Susan Hares' <[email protected]>; 'SPRING WG' <[email protected]>; idr@ietf. org <[email protected]> 主题: 回复: [BGP-SR-TE] Request for information - prior to adoption call for draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path 这个是Susan向SPRING和IDR工作组寻求这篇文稿提出的关于复合候选路径只限制BGP来源是否合理的问题解答。 1) Can composite SR Candidate Paths be limited to be created from only explicit (aka Static) BGP SR Candidate path? * If so, how is it done (technically)? * What text should be found in draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path-04 on this limited? * Is it there? 2) Is the limitation of composite path to specific BGP sources an appropriate use of the composite concept from SPRING? 3) How does this interact with the PCE composite CPs? 发件人: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 发送时间: 2026年7月11日 0:09 收件人: 'SPRING WG' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; idr@ietf. org <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 主题: [spring] [BGP-SR-TE] Request for information - prior to adoption call for draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path 温馨提示： 此邮件来自公司外部，请核实发件人信息，慎点链接与附件。This is an external email. Please verify the sender's information and proceed with caution when clicking links or downloading attachments. Greetings Spring and IDR: Please note that IPR may exist for this technology. If you are participating in this discussion and know of IPR, please see the IETF IPR rules. The authors of draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path-04 have requested WG LC. During IETF-125, I spent a lengthy time discussing the issues of creating BGP routes from any dynamic source (e.g. IGP). The authors indicated that these BGP composite paths would come from explicit SR Policy Candidate Policies, which are statically configured. This document’s abstract states: SR Policy Architecture [RFC9256] defines the concept of a Composite Candidate Path. A regular SR Policy Candidate Path outputs traffic to a set of Segment Lists, while an SR Policy Composite Candidate Path outputs traffic recursively to a set of SR Policies on the same headend. This document defines extensions to BGP to distribute SR policies carrying composite candidate path information. So that composite candidate paths can be installed when the SR policy is applied. The authors have indicated that the source for the composite policy would be BGP explicit SR Candidate Paths. The SR policy in the composite path can be distributed by BGP as described in [RFC9830], by PCEP as described in [RFC 9862], or through static configuration. I have 3 groups of questions as the shepherd for this draft: 1) Can composite SR Candidate Paths be limited to be created from only explicit (aka Static) BGP SR Candidate path? * If so, how is it done (technically)? * What text should be found in draft-jiang-idr-sr-policy-composite-path-04 on this limited? * Is it there? 2) Is the limitation of composite path to specific BGP sources an appropriate use of the composite concept from SPRING? 3) How does this interact with the PCE composite CPs? Cheerily, Sue Hares ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。 禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中的信息。 如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！ This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
