John,
(Cc'ing IDR.)
2015-11-13, John E Drake:
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
thedefault 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."
Having more text to explain things in the overlay draft does not hurt.
For the tunnel encaps draft, replace this text in section 5:
"If the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute contains several TLVs (i.e.,
ifit 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.,
ifit 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."
I think that the above will technically work.
*However* it would be a pity to *not* have the very useful clear-text
explanation of the reason for the 'MPLS' type (what you propose to add
above in the overlay draft) in draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-00... why
provide the smooth explanation for only one of the specs to which this
'MPLS' type applies ?
We hope this is satisfactory.
Close, but not quite there yet :)
Best,
-Thomas
-----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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
