Jorge,
Lots of thanks for the update.
A few comments on the new text of Section 3.1:
1. “The Ethernet Tag should be set to 0” - IMHO this is MUST or, at least
SHOULD. The IP-VRF that installs this route cannot interpret a non-zero value
of the Ethernet Tag in any way.
2. “The route MUST carry the Route Target of the corresponding IP-VRF” -
IMHO it should be “all Export Route Targets of the corresponding IP VRF” (there
may be more than one Export Route Target in an IP-VRF, and an IP-VRF may use a
different set of Import Route Targets.
3. “For backup path, the Primary PE will advertise P=1 and the Backup PE
will advertise P=0, B=1”:
* This seems to apply to Single-Active multi-homing only, because the
previous sentence covers All-Active multi-homing
* Should be “the Primary PE will advertise P=1 and B=0”
4. “The Primary PE SHOULD be a PE with a routing adjacency to the attached
CE” and “The Primary PE MAY be … elected by a DF Election” - IMHO and FWIW with
Single-Active multi-homing (which is the context for discussing Primary/Backup
roles) these two statements always elect the same PE, i.e., one of these
statements can be removed.
Hopefully, these notes will be useful.
Regards,
Sasha
From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 9:57 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
Hi Sasha,
We just published version 08.
We made some changes in section 3.1 based on your comments.
Note that the draft does not really create a new situation for the AD per EVI
route in which it could be imported in different VRF types. Prior to this
document the A-D per EVI route could also be imported in a MAC-VRF or a VPWS
type of service.
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:25 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
Jorge,
Again, lots of thanks for your response.
I have doubts regarding your statement “the IP A-D per EVI route carries the
BGP encapsulation extended community” in the context of pure EVPN-MPLS.
1. My reading of Section 5.3.1 of RFC
8365<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8365.html#section-5.1.3>, nodes that
support only MPLS encapsulation are not required to add this Extended Community
to any EVPN routes, and the nodes that receive EVPN routes without this
Extended Community attached assume MPLS encapsulation
2. Section 4.4.1 of RFC 9136 also does not require adding this Extended
Community to EVPN IP Prefix routes, only mentions that it (as well as the
Router’s MAC Extended Community) “may be added”
3. Last but not least, Encapsulation Extended community is not mentioned
at all in Section 3.1 of the
draft<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-07#section-3.1>
that defines construction of IP per-EVI A-D routes.
With regard to your statement “we never specified how to import routes with a
single label if they come with multiple route targets and they match different
MAC-VRFs and IP-VRFs” : I agree that this has never been specified, but, IMHO,
this was not really needed, because, until now, the standards defining these
routes have never allowed any alternatives. From my POV the draft creates a new
situation, where, locking just at the NLRI of the EVPN Type 1 route, it is
impossible to decide whether it will be installed in the FDB of a MAC-VRF/BD,
or in the RIB (and FIB) of an IP-VRF.
So I think some text in the draft clarifying this would be most useful.
Regards,
Sasha
From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 9:06 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
Hi Sasha,
In-line too.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 9:27 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
Jorge,
Lots of thanks for your response.
Please see more comments inline below.
Regards,
Sasha
From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 6:35 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
Hi Sasha,
Let me try to reply to your questions:
How can a PE that receives an EVPN Type 1 route decide whether it is a per-EVI
Ethernet A-D route or a per-EVI IP A-D route?
[jorge] The IP A-D per EVI route carries a route target of an IP-VRF.
[[Sasha]] Yes, I have assumed the same. But what is supposed to happen if an
A-D per-EVI route carries RTs that match both some IP-=VRF and some MAC-VRF in
the receiving PE? Should such a route be simply treated as an error (and, if
yes, what would be the action on it), or should one of the two possibilities
given priority? Such a route clearly could not be installed in both places.
[jorge] I don’t think we need to specify that in the draft, in the same way we
never specified how to import routes with a single label if they come with
multiple route targets and they match different MAC-VRFs and IP-VRFs. Clearly
if the advertising PE does as specified, it will send different routes for ESIs
in MAC-VRFs or in IP-VRFs. So what you are describing is a non-expected
scenario. Even so, the receiving PE could potentially import it in two places
(I don’t see why not), but the route would be of no use in one of the VRFs
unless you received also the proper MAC/IP routes and IP Prefix routes with the
same ESI.
2. “The draft defines, without going into details, quite a different
procedure for recursive resolution of such routes that uses per EVI IP A-D
routes introduced in the draft. This procedure inherently assumes that
inter-subnet traffic is carried between the PEs as IP-VPN traffic (i.e.,
without inner L2 encapsulation).
My question is: How can the PE that receives an EVPN IP Prefix routes with a
non-reserved ESI value decide which of these two procedures it should apply to
each specific route?”
[jorge] As discussed, for IP Prefix routes, the draft extends RFC9136 section
4.4.1 (we added some text about it) to support the resolution of IP Prefix
routes to IP A-D routes.
- RFC9136 section 4.4.1 supports both Ethernet NVO tunnels and IP NVO tunnels
(see the terminology section in RFC9136). That is, both inner L2 or L3
encapsulation.
- If an implementation receives an IP Prefix route with a non-reserved ESI
value that is imported in an IP-VRF, the procedures in the draft are followed,
irrespective of whether the PEs use Ethernet NVO or IP NVO tunnels. The route
resolution is described in 5.3.1.
- By the way, the recursive resolution is compatible with RFC9136. See table
1, first two top rows:
+==========+==========+==========+============+===============+
| ESI | GW IP | MAC* | Label | Overlay Index |
+==========+==========+==========+============+===============+
| Non-Zero | Zero | Zero | Don't Care | ESI |
+----------+----------+----------+------------+---------------+
| Non-Zero | Zero | Non-Zero | Don't Care | ESI |
+----------+----------+----------+------------+---------------+
[[Sasha]] Unfortunately, it doesn’t, it seems that my original question has
been presented clearly enough.
My scope of interest is EVPN over an IP/MPLS core, i.e., I am only discussing
only MPLS tunnels.
My understanding of the interface-less IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF model as described in
9136 is that it does not imply recursive resolution and inter-subnet traffic
crosses the core as pure IP over MPLS (i.e., the customer IP header immediately
follows the bottom of the label stack). This is fully aligned with the
mechanism used with Symmetric IRB as defined in Section 5.4 of RFC 9135 that
says: “If the tunnel type is that of an MPLS or IP-only NVO tunnel, then the
TS's IP packet is sent over the tunnel without any Ethernet header.” I assume
that your modified model does not change the way customer inter-subnet traffic
is carried across the IP/NMPLS core (you’ve mentioned that the modified model
still does not use SBD).
At the same time, all the scenarios in RFC 9136 that use recursive resolution
imply insertion of an “inner Ethernet header” between the bottom of the label
stack and the customer IP header, and the difference between these methods is
about the way Destination MAC address of this inner Ethernet header is obtained
(from the suitable RT-2, from the Router MAC Extended Community or by a local
policy). This matches my understanding of Asymmetric IRB as defined in Section
6.3 of RFC 9135: “The ingress PE gets the destination TS's MAC address for that
TS's IP address from its ARP table or NDP cache. It encapsulates the packet
with that destination MAC address and a source MAC address corresponding to
that IRB interface and sends the packet to its destination subnet MAC-VRF/BT.
The destination MAC address lookup in the MAC-VRF/BT results in a BGP next-hop
address of the egress PE along with label1 (L2 VPN MPLS label or VNI).”
With RFC 9136, the PE that receives an IP Prefix Route can decide whether its
handling by the data plane does or does not involve inclusion of the “inner L2
header: recursive resolution always implies inner L2 header, if it is not used,
no inner L2 header is needed.
[jorge] Maybe this is the disconnect. RFC9136 is not really mandating that
“recursive resolution” or “overlay index != None” means inner Ethernet header.
Section 3.2 does not specify that at all. So you could receive an IP Prefix
route with the format of the first row in table 1 in your MPLS case, and based
on RFC9136 the route uses the ESI as overlay index, hence it needs an A-D per
EVI route for resolution.
If either the ESI or the GW IP are non-zero, then the non-zero one
is the Overlay Index, regardless of whether the EVPN Router's MAC
Extended Community is present or the value of the label.
Now, while RFC9136 allows the ESI as overlay index with IP NVO encaps (e.g.
MPLS with ip payload), there was not a use-case for it. Hence the ip-aliasing
draft section 1.3 and the text we added (that I thought it addressed your
comments):
Note that this document modifies [RFC9136] section
4.4.1<https://clicktime.symantec.com/15t5ZtTi24XoxDagvpRXN?h=ikytnyONCwNSZuh45Yp8SCvUitBHujRvBAsUxWjMTJc=&u=https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9136%23section-4.4.1>
(Interface-
less IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF Model) by allowing a non-zero Ethernet Segment
Identifier value on EVPN IP Prefix routes and the recursive
resolution of the ESI to EVPN A-D per EVI routes.
Your modification breaks this simple rule: data plane handling of a received
and installed an RT-5 with a non-reserved ESI value in its NLRI sometimes
requires usage of inner L2 header (old scenarios from RFC 9136) and sometimes
does not require it (in the new scenario defined in the draft).
[jorge] it does not break the rule, please see above.
My question was: How can the receiving PE differentiate between these two cases?
[jorge] in both cases an IP Prefix route is received for the IP-VRF with
non-reserved ESI. Then:
- In both cases this means the overlay index is the ESI hence recursive
resolution is needed.
- In the ip aliasing draft, the PE finds a set of IP A-D per EVI routes
imported in the IP-VRF. And these are the routes used for the resolution to
MPLS tunnels
- In RFC9136 section 4.3, the PE finds a set of A-D per EVI routes imported in
the MAC-VRF connected via IRB to the IP-VRF where the prefix is installed
If the RT attached to the received IP Prefix route with a non-reserved ESI
value matches a MAC-VRF in the receiving PE, inner L2 header is required, and
if it matches an IP-VRF, inner L2 header is not required.
If this is indeed the intention, then handling of the case when one of the RTs
attached to this route matches a MAC-VRF while another matches an IP-VRF should
be explicitly defined.
What, if anything, did I miss?
[jorge] That is really not the intention. If the A-D per EVI route is imported
in a MAC-VRF, the encapsulation is indeed Ethernet NVO. If imported in an
IP-VRF, the encapsulation may be Ethernet (e.g., vxlan) or IP NVO (e.g., mpls).
Note that the IP A-D per EVI route carries the BGP encapsulation extended
community.
IMHO I don’t think we need to say much more, but if you still think we should,
please let us know what kind of text would help.
Let me know if it helps.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 9:54 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
Jorge and all,
More of the same:
How can a PE that receives an EVPN Type 1 route decide whether it is a per-EVI
Ethernet A-D route or a per-EVI IP A-D route?
My 2c,
Sasha
Get Outlook for
Android<https://clicktime.symantec.com/15sLvSrP5CLHBNV5D1ben?h=tSgtELOk8fh63wAQLCkLBPtuKy-15fqWvT19hbmH8Eo=&u=https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2023 12:57:00 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
Jorge,
Lots of thanks for the new revision, it addresses the majority of my comments.
I still have some doubts about co-existence of the “old” (as in RFC 9136
Section 4.4.1) and “new” interface-less IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF models.
Specifically:
1. Section 4.3 of RFC 9136 provides a detailed procedure for recursive
resolution of received EVPN IP Prefix routes with a non-reserved ESI value in
their NLRI. To the best of my understanding, this procedure inherently assumes
that inter-subnet traffic is carried between the PEs as EVPN traffic (i.e.,
with inner L2 encapsulation). This procedure uses the Router MAC Extended
Community, or, in the case of its absence, a local policy for determination of
the Destination MAC address in the inner L2 encapsulation/
2. The draft defines, without going into details, quite a different
procedure for recursive resolution of such routes that uses per EVI IP A-D
routes introduced in the draft. This procedure inherently assumes that
inter-subnet traffic is carried between the PEs as IP-VPN traffic (i.e.,
without inner L2 encapsulation).
My question is: How can the PE that receives an EVPN IP Prefix routes with a
non-reserved ESI value decide which of these two procedures it should apply to
each specific route?
I think that the draft should provide an unambiguous answer to this question.
Regards,
Sasha
From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 9:23 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
Sasha,
We just published version 07 of the EVPN IP Aliasing draft, and tried to
address your comments in this thread. Let us know if you have further comments.
Thank you!
Jorge
From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:09 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
Hi Sasha,
I can work on some clarifications in the text based on your feedback.
About whether the draft updates RFC9136, I’m hesitant to add it to the header,
since this spec is obviously optional.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 at 5:51 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See
https://clicktime.symantec.com/15siFAdRxjC6ZR12VsdcD?h=9dKjeFiIGxpBYd94GifyAUHFA2O22JVj1NliypFJLQk=&u=http://nok.it/ext<https://clicktime.symantec.com/15siFAdRxjC6ZR12VsdcD?h=9dKjeFiIGxpBYd94GifyAUHFA2O22JVj1NliypFJLQk=&u=http://nok.it/ext>
for additional information.
Hi Jorge,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
I have explained my position with regard to IP Aliasing for RT-5 in
Interface-less IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF model in my previous email.
I only can add that the neither the metadata of the IP Aliasing draft nor its
text specify an update to RFC 9136.
Regards,
Sasha
From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 4:17 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Dmitry Valdman
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Nitsan Dolev
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Michael Gorokhovsky
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ron
Sdayoor <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Egon Haparnass
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Shell Nakash
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Marina Fizgeer
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Orly Kariv
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Moti Morgenstern
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Rotem Cohen
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
Hi Sasha,
Please see in-line with [jorge].
Thanks for the good questions/points.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 11:16 PM
To:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
Dmitry Valdman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
Nitsan Dolev <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Michael
Gorokhovsky
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ron
Sdayoor <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Egon Haparnass
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Shell Nakash
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Marina Fizgeer
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Orly Kariv
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Moti Morgenstern
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Rotem Cohen
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See
https://clicktime.symantec.com/15t5Zsu7ZPvvXHNzW589B?h=3ceHKr8YVLM3UOko-NyIuMmvVO2HwRp1fi1RLBdLkNo=&u=http://nok.it/ext<https://clicktime.symantec.com/15t5Zsu7ZPvvXHNzW589B?h=3ceHKr8YVLM3UOko-NyIuMmvVO2HwRp1fi1RLBdLkNo=&u=http://nok.it/ext>
for additional information.
Hi all,
A few questions and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing
draft<https://clicktime.symantec.com/15t5ei6Q21cWwECv3dXHo?h=hLCOzcf5t8oR3LIGwDra1wBHCN4UcxyL3SN_N-D7vPY=&u=https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-06>:
Section 3 of the draft states that a PE that is attached to a MH ES shall
advertise a set of IP per ES A-D routes, and Section 4.1 says that these routes
shall be tagged with Export RTs of all IP-VRFs attached to this MH ES. The
following is not mentioned:
Should the ESI Label Extended Community be attached to these routes? My guess
(FWIW) is that this is necessary, since this is the only way to let the remote
PEs to know the MH mode of the MH ES in question.
[jorge] correct
Assuming an affirmative answer to the previous question, what should the ESI
Label Extended Community attached to these routes carry in its Label field? My
guess (FWIW) is that his field is not relevant and should be set to all zeroes.
[jorge] yes. We can add a sentence to that respect. The label field SHOULD be
set to 0 and MUST be ignored on reception.
Section 3 of the draft says that “a remote PE that receives an EVPN MAC/IP
Advertisement route or an IP Prefix route with a non-reserved ESI and the RT of
a particular IP-VRF SHOULD consider it reachable by every PE that has
advertised an IP A-D per ES and IP A-D per EVI route for that ESI and IP-VRF”:
Is the statement above applicable in the case of a MH ES in Single-Active MH
Mode? My guess is that it is only applicable to MH Es in All-Active MH mode
[jorge] same as in rfc7432bis, both modes
If the answer to the previous question is negative, should the PE that receives
an EVPN Type 2 route for an IP→MAC pair treat the IP address in this pair
reachable only via he PE that has advertised this route and treating other PEs
as “backup PEs” (similar to what is defined in Section 14.1.1 of RFC
7432<https://clicktime.symantec.com/15t5pNUxwEyhm7rm8kKb3?h=m9ESlNFEXlL5s4xyn-g6bmr0dWvx9li2FHAjKrC16c0=&u=https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7432.html%23section-14.1.1>)?
[jorge] yes, assuming that PE the has received the AD routes.
The suggestion to attach the Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community to the per
EVI IP A-D route in Section 3.1 of the draft seems to support my guesses above
I also think that if the MH ES in Single-Active mode is attached o more than 2
PEs, the Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community MUST be attached to EVPN per EVI
IP A-D routes.
[jorge] at the moment the addition of the L2 Attr ext community is a SHOULD. I
have no problem in making it a MUST assuming my co-authors are ok.
I have to admit that I do not understand how IP Aliasing should work for EVPN
IP Prefix routes in the Interface-less IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF scenario mentioned in
Section 1.2 of he draft:
Table 1 in RFC
9136<https://clicktime.symantec.com/15t5jYHgUdJ7MB2qbBvSR?h=3pwOHmxhy4P_vmCrfN-Bzd29Fz_PC1o-KGYWe1eTTfY=&u=https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9136%23fields_overlay_table>
states that a non-zero ESI value in the NLRI of IP Prefix routes is used as an
Overlay index for recursive resolution, while that the Label value in such a
NLRI is “Don’t Care”.
At the same time, section 4.1.1 of this RFC states that the ESI field of the
NLRI f these routes is set to all zeroes in the Interface-less IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF
scenario while the Label field in the NRLI of these routes identifies the IP
VRF in question.
Can you please explain how can, in this scenario, the receiving PE associate
received EVPN IP Prefix routes with a specific MH ES?
[jorge] section 1.2 illustrates an RFC9136 interface-less model since there is
no SBD. However, this draft modifies the interface-less model by using non-zero
ESI on the IP Prefix routes and a recursive resolution to A-D per ES/EVI routes.
Your timely feedback would be highly appreciated.
Regards, and lots of hanks in advance,
Sasha
Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of
Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or
proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure,
reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of
Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or
proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure,
reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
