Thomas, I spoke with Eric and Ali and we would like to change both the overlay draft and the tunnel encaps drafts as follows.
For the overlay draft, replace this text in section 5.1.3: "If the BGP Encapsulation extended community is not present, then the default MPLS encapsulation or a statically configured encapsulation is assumed." With the following: "Note that the MPLS encapsulation tunnel type is needed in order to distinguish between an advertising node that only supports non-MPLS encapsulations and one that supports MPLS and non-MPLS encapsulations. An advertising node that only supports MPLS encapsulation does not need to advertise any encapsulation tunnel types; i.e., if the BGP Encapsulation extended community is not present, then either MPLS encapsulation or a statically configured encapsulation is assumed." For the tunnel encaps draft, replace this text in section 5: "If the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute contains several TLVs (i.e., if it specifies several tunnels), router R may choose any one of those tunnels, based upon local policy. If any of tunnels' TLVs contain the Color sub-TLV and/or the Protocol Type sub-TLV defined in [RFC5512], the choice of tunnel may be influenced by these sub-TLVs." With the following: "If the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute contains several TLVs (i.e., if it specifies several tunnels), router R may choose any one of those tunnels, based upon local policy. If any of tunnels' TLVs contain the Color sub-TLV and/or the Protocol Type sub-TLV defined in [RFC5512], the choice of tunnel may be influenced by these sub-TLVs. Note that if none of the TLVs specifies the MPLS tunnel type, a Label Switched Path SHOULD NOT be used unless none of the TLVs specifies a feasible tunnel." We hope this is satisfactory. Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Morin [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:08 AM > To: John E Drake; [email protected] > Cc: Eric Rosen > Subject: Re: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02' > > Hi John, > > 2015-11-12, John E Drake: > > > > Why do you think it should be documented in Eric's draft rather than in the > EVPN Overlay draft? > > The issue applies beyond the context of E-VPN overlay specs, and exist in > any context where different kinds of MPLS(/x) encaps can be mixed (E-VPN > non-overlay, IP VPNs), which is addressed by Eric's draft. > > Best, > > -Thomas _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
