IMO there are more important reasons why one does not deploy RTC. Jim Uttaro
-----Original Message----- From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mach Chen Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 2:05 AM To: Haoweiguo; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Thomas Morin; BESS Cc: IDR Chairs Subject: Re: [bess] 答复: 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN 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
