IMO the SAFIs already defined for flowspec (SAFI 133, 134) can be reused. The L2 AFI can ensure a separate AFI/SAFI for L2.
Best regards, Jie > -----Original Message----- > From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim > (Wim) > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:09 PM > To: Haoweiguo; Bertrand Duvivier (bduvivie) > Cc: IDR Chairs; Thomas Morin; BESS > Subject: Re: [bess] 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN > > 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 _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
