Hi Bertrand, Yes, unified fs safi is a good design, the fs safi can be used for all kinds of BGP fs, like IPv4,VPNv4,IPv6,VPNv6, layer 2(EVPN,PBB-EVPN,TRILL-EVPN,NVO3-EVPN,VPLS,PBB-VPLS.etc). Currently IPV4 and VPNv4 flowspec has already been defined in RFC [5575]. IPv6 and VPNv6 flowspec definition is a WG draft. If we prefer unified fs safi, should layer 2 fs and IPv6 fs merge into one single draft or evolve separately? I would like to hear WG co-chairs and experts opinion on this point. Thanks weiguo ________________________________________ From: Bertrand Duvivier (bduvivie) [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 16:00 To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Cc: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS; IDR Chairs Subject: Re: [bess] 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
+1... Would to avoid to see multiplication of fs safi. Sent from iPAD > On Nov 14, 2014, at 01:15, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
