I am on the same page On 13/11/14 21:05, "Mach Chen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Weiguo, Wim and others, > >IMHO, AFI/SAFI based Flowspec would have better scalability and >compatibility. There is a precedent (RT-Constrain) that adopted the >unified RT for all AFI/SAFI that bring many limitation when deploying RTC. > >Best regards, >Mach > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Haoweiguo >> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 8:42 AM >> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Thomas Morin; BESS >> Cc: IDR Chairs >> Subject: [bess] 答复: 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN >> >> 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 >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
