Dear Authors,
Thanks. Then let me abuse your attention and fill another request for the same
subject.
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services has been developed in such a way that it does not
need any changes in all services developed before, including RFC7432, RFC4364,
RFC4659, and RFC8950.
The only new mechanism that draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services introduces is a
mapping between 3bytes of "Label Filed" (that should not be changed) and
16bytes of SID. They have offset and length where to search for "function" to
extract and put into "Label Field".
The only new information that draft transports is SID structure and attributes.
It is transported by TLV that is not related to "BGP Path Attributes".
On contrary, all your functionality is inside "BGP Path Attributes", like the
functionality for RFC7432, RFC4364, RFC4659, and RFC8950.
Hence, the collision has a low probability - they play with different TLV
("Prefix SID TLV") at the BGP root.
I have read both drafts. IMHO: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services does not affect
your draft. You are compatible.
It was probably the intention of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services authors (not to
disturb mature BGP services). Let them speak.
Hence, my request:
Could you investigate the possibility to include the claim for compatibility of
your draft with draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services?
To be ready for interworking with SRv6 services too.
Of course, you could point exact version (-08?) to be sure that your claim is
valid.
Eduard
From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 9:47 PM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking compatible to all
potential use cases?
Hi Eduard,
Sounds like a reasonable request to me. We'll look into it for the next version.
Thank you!
Jorge
From: Vasilenko Eduard
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:09 PM
To:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Is draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking compatible to all potential
use cases?
Dear Authors,
You have normative references only for RFC7432 and RFC4364 types of services.
RFC4659<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4659> and
RFC8950<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8950> are missing in normative
and informative. Why?
Especially when you effectively included the support for IPv6 AFI inside the
definition of "ISF SAFI":
The ISF SAFIs are 1 (including IPv4 and IPv6 AFIs), 128 (including IPv4 and
IPv6 AFIs) and 70 (EVPN, including only AFI 25).
I have read your draft and do not see a problem to claim support for these use
cases too.
[cid:[email protected]]
Best Regards
Eduard Vasilenko
Senior Architect
Europe Standardization & Industry Development Department
Tel: +7(985) 910-1105, +7(916) 800-5506
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
