Sue, It would be helpful if both you and Russ would offer some specifics. E.g., the next hop issue that you mentioned in the BESS meeting has nothing to do w/ the base EVPN spec.
Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Hares [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 12:25 AM > To: 'Russ White'; John E Drake; 'Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)' > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [bess] EVPN Draft Comments > > Russ and John: > > I have concerns about the issues Russ has raised as well as other concerns > regarding the EVPN. As I mentioned at the last IETF's BESS meeting, John > Scudder and I have been discussing the next-hop issues in BESS drafts to see > if IDR could create better BGP mechanism for the future BESS drafts. In > this review, it became clear that several of the mechanism in EVPN could > have been done in a simpler and more elegant way in BGP. It was not the > first EVPN specification that made this clear, but the review of several > drafts. > > I am pragmatic. It is auth-48. If the EVPN is widely shipping and deployed > in > networks, it is unlikely that the vendors or providers want to change it at > this > point. They have coded the EVPN solution. My agreement with the > BESS chairs was this investigation was not to derail their work. > > If you are interested, I would appreciate a phone conversation with both of > you. John Scudder indicated that John Drake would be the best person > within Juniper to discuss this point with. Perhaps we can talk about all of > these issues. Since it is a BGP mechanism, perhaps if we create a more > elegant BGP mechanism it could be considered as a "bis" for EVPN drafts. I > suspect EVPN use is only going to grow, and better BGP mechanisms usually > mean more efficient and scalable code. > > Best wishes, > > Sue Hares > > -----Original Message----- > From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russ White > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 7:12 PM > To: 'John E Drake'; 'Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)' > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [bess] EVPN Draft Comments > > > > [JD] What RFC 7432 actually says is: "The MAC Address Length field > > is in bits, and it is set to 48. > > MAC address length values other than 48 bits are outside the scope of > > this document." So, The MAC Address field is a variable length field > > whose length is currently set to 48. > > And the figure clearly shows the length at 6 octets only. I'm not arguing the > draft didn't _intend_ to make this a variable length field -- I'm arguing the > draft, as written, can easily be misinterpreted, and could use clarification. > > > [JD] Just because you don't like/understand it doesn't necessarily > > mean it's wrong. > > John -- you could have said, "I think it's elegant because..." -- or, "I > agree it's > not perfect, but we chose this solution because..." Instead, you decided to > launch a personal attack, calling me stupid/uneducated/ignorant/whatever. > This is one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about working in the > IETF -- we cannot hold ourselves to an actual discussion, we have to find > some way to make claims about other people personally, no matter whether > or not we think they're true, etc. The next time someone says, "I can't figure > out why we are losing participation in the IETF," go back and reread your > response. > > Now -- to return to the actual topic at hand -- I find the idea of binding > things > together tightly, and then creating an "alias," rather than creating a looser > bind and map in the first place, is worse. That might not fit what you think, > but it's still something worth mentioning. > > :-) > > Russ > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
