Thanks Ali.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Anoop, > > The provided text is fine. Given that it is just a minor clarification > text, I think it should be OK to incorporate it; however, I need to check > with the chairs and the AD given that this draft has already gone through > the WG LC. > > Cheers, > Ali > > From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani < > [email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:11 AM > To: Cisco Employee <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [bess] a question about bundled service in > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08 > > Thanks Ali. > > May be worth modifying the sentence below to say: > >>> > > 8) When a 802.1Q interface is used between a CE and a PE, each of the > VLAN ID (VID) on that interface can be mapped onto a bridge table > (for upto 4094 such bridge tables). More than one bridge table may be > mapped onto a single MAC-VRF (in case of VLAN-aware bundle service). > > >>> > > Anoop > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> >> From: BESS <[email protected]> on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani < >> [email protected]> >> Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:39 PM >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: [bess] a question about bundled service in >> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08 >> >> >> This is what the draft says about bundled service: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08#section-4 >> >>> >> >> 8) When a 802.1Q interface is used between a CE and a PE, each of the >> VLAN ID (VID) on that interface can be mapped onto a bridge table >> (for upto 4094 such bridge tables). All these bridge tables may be >> mapped onto a single MAC-VRF (in case of VLAN-aware bundle service). >> >> >>> >> >> So it sounds like 1:1 is supported (that's the straightforward case where >> the inner VLAD ID is stripped from the encap'ed packet) and All:1 is >> supported (i.e. the service is blind to the incoming tag and just preserves >> it as is, potentially with normalization if translation is required). >> >> What about the case for n:1 where I want some subset of VLAN IDs coming >> in on a port to map to VNID1, and another subset map to VNID2? Is that >> explicitly disallowed? If so, why? >> >> That’s is also supported. Refer to section 6 of RFC 7432 for different >> service interfaces that are supported. >> >> Cheers, >> Ali >> >> Thanks, >> Anoop >> >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
