Hi Rob, Thanks for your review and comments. Please see my reply inline marked with "AS>".
On 7/16/20, 6:38 AM, "Robert Wilton via Datatracker" <[email protected]> wrote: Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with the other ADs that this document seemed terse in places and won't repeat those same comments here. One question I have is whether it is possible to have a deployment where some devices support synchronous mode and others support asynchronous mode. Am I right in presuming that this is not supported and if so is this capability signaled in any way? Or is the expectation that this would be controlled via deployment choice of network device, or though configuration management? AS> The current deployments AFAIK are either symmetric or asymmetric. However, this doesn't mean that we won't run into interop between symmetric and asymmetric IRB in the future. That's why we put out a draft to describe the interop between symmetric and asymmetric IRB modes about a year ago - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krattiger-evpn-modes-interop-01. Cheers, Ali Regards, Rob _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
