I would do the separate AFI/SAFI when we add L2. Customers deployed Ipv4/Ipv6 with VPN or without VPNs already so we should not change this.
On 19/11/14 03:56, "Haoweiguo" <[email protected]> wrote: >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
