I understand the RT overlap concern but is this a practical issue. Would be good to get some opinions on this.
On 13/11/14 14:42, "Haoweiguo" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Wim, >It seems to be a solution. Another problem: >Current BGP flow spec for L2 VPN /L3 VPN relies on Rout Target for policy >import/export. If using unified solution, RT can't overlap between >different applications(L2VPN,L3VPN...). If using separating AFI/SAFI >solution, no RT constraint issue. >Maybe there are other questions for unified solution, i would like to >hear other expert's comments on your proposal. >Thanks >weiguo > >________________________________________ >发件人: BESS [[email protected]] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) >[[email protected]] >发送时间: 2014年11月14日 8:27 >收件人: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS >抄送: IDR Chairs >主题: Re: [bess] 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN > >We define a new AFI/SAFI that accommodates all we have + include L2 >extensions. >Operators that don’t need L2 extensions keep what they have. >Operators that need L2 extensions go to the new method or mix the new >method with the old methods per service type. > >Make sense? > >On 13/11/14 14:16, "Haoweiguo" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>How to achieve compatability with current existed flowspec[RFC5575] >>applications? >>Thanks >>weiguo >> >>________________________________________ >>发件人: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [[email protected]] >>发送时间: 2014年11月14日 8:14 >>收件人: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS >>抄送: IDR Chairs >>主题: Re: 答复: [bess] Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN >> >>If we define a new things I prefer to address the wider issue and include >>L2 in that. >> >>On 13/11/14 14:13, "Haoweiguo" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>Hi Wim, >>>Allocating different AFI/SAFI(s) for each flow spec application is a >>>applicable solution. Theoretically, unified mechanism for all flowspec >>>can be designed, but it maybe a more harder work in IDR. >>>Thanks >>>weiguo >>> >>>________________________________________ >>>发件人: BESS [[email protected]] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) >>>[[email protected]] >>>发送时间: 2014年11月14日 7:55 >>>收件人: Thomas Morin; BESS >>>抄送: IDR Chairs >>>主题: Re: [bess] Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN >>> >>>As I stated in the IDR meeting my observation is that we require to many >>>AFI/SAFI(s) for all flow spec functions. Flow spec in general is >>>providing >>>match criteria¹s with related actions. Given the proposal on Flowspec >>>for >>>L2 is new we should look at the bigger picture. >>>In My view we need a mechanism in BGP to advertise Flowspec match >>>criteria¹s with related actions and they should cover L2/L3-IPv4/IPv6. >>> >>>On 13/11/14 13:44, "Thomas Morin" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>Hi WG, >>>> >>>>A heads up... >>>> >>>>These two drafts relate to BESS and thus may be of interest to us: >>>>- draft-hao-idr-flowspec-l2vpn >>>><http://tools.ietf.org/html?draft=draft-hao-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-01> (on >>>>idr agenda, being presented right now) >>>>- draft-hao-idr-flowspec-evpn >>>><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-evpn-00> >>>> >>>>Best, >>>> >>>>-Thomas >>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>BESS mailing list >>>>[email protected] >>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>BESS mailing list >>>[email protected] >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
