Hi!

Sasha: You make a good point: if here are things that this document Updates
rfc7432 on, which are not specific just to the DCI, then we should go ahead
with it.

The current related text reads:

   In particular, the document updates [RFC7432] on several aspects:

   o The Interconnect Ethernet Segment (I-ES), an Ethernet Segment that
     can be associated not only to a set of Ethernet links, as in
     [RFC7432], but also to a set of PWs or other tunnels.

   o The use of the Unknown MAC route in a DCI scenario.

   o The processing of EVPN routes on Gateways with MAC-VRFs connecting
     EVPN-Overlay and EVPN-MPLS networks, or EVPN-Overlay and EVPN-
     Overlay networks.

Jorge:  Are there extensions defined in this document that are not specific
to the DCI case and that should apply to any EVPN scenario?  If so, can we
update the text to only reflect items that are *not* just DCI-specific?

That is the only outstanding item as the document was otherwise approved by
the IESG today.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On February 21, 2018 at 8:17:10 AM, Alexander Vainshtein (
alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com) wrote:

PWs as an a “virtual ES” are also used in conjunction with EVPN in the
scenarios that are not directly related to DCI. One example (actually
pointed to me by Jorge during the review process) is the EVPN Virtual
Ethernet Segment
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-02>
 draft (now expired).



It is, of course, up to you to decide whether this justifies marking the
draft I’ve reviewed as Updating RFC 7432 because it also defined PWs as a
(virtual) ES for EVPN. Alternatively, it is possible to wait until the EVPN
Virtual segment draft is resuscitated and progressed – but this can take
quite some time...
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to