plane can effectively
> manage large-scale SD-WAN overlay networks with minimal manual intervention.
>
> Thank you very much,
> Linda
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Scudder
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 9:05 AM
> To: Linda Dunbar
> Cc:
On Mar 7, 2024, at 9:47 AM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote:
>
> zzh> If the source host is also connected to another BD3 that is attached to
> PE2 and it is sending to both BD2 and BD3, then both copies will be switched
> to PE1 via the SBD
So the only consequence is suboptimality because of
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11: 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
EVI Ethernet A-D routes when multihoming is enabled.
To me this suggests that that the intention probably was not so clear for other
people as well
My 2c,
Sasha
From: John Scudder
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 3:17 PM
To: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8214 (7
This looks like a candidate “hold for document update”. The original document
doesn’t seem to be in error, the erratum is just suggesting some editorial
improvements/clarifications. Note that RFC 2119 keywords are not mandatory [*]
in IETF specifications, what’s important is that the intent is
Hi Linda,
To be clear, I hope the BESS chairs and AD will also engage on this question,
and I’ve changed the subject line to distinguish this subthread.
> On Feb 27, 2024, at 10:47 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
>
> ### Is it in charter?
>
> Looking at the BESS charter, I don't see how this
Hi Linda,
A few replies to some of the more specific/actionable points, below.
> On Feb 27, 2024, at 10:47 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
...
> ### Error in how RFC 9012 is used
>
> In Section 5.2, the Encapsulation Extended Community is misused. See
>
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-20: Discuss
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
rg/errata/eid7683
>
> --
> Status: Verified
> Type: Technical
>
> Reported by: Denis Vrkic
> Date Reported: 2023-10-19
> Verified by: John Scudder (IESG)
>
> Section: 4.2.
>
> Original Text
> -
> 2
een explicitly captured in this RFC8365 and
> if it is not covered, then it is assumed applicability of RFC7432bis
> including RED field setting in ESI Label Extended Community.
> Regards,
> Ali
> From: John Scudder
> Date: Friday, February 9, 2024 at 1:18 PM
> To: bess@ietf.org
&g
Hi Authors and all,
While we are looking at RFC 9135, please look at this one too. Looks reasonable.
Thanks and happy Friday,
—John
> On Oct 20, 2023, at 10:39 AM, RFC Errata System
> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9135,
> "Integrated Routing and Bridging
Looks right (there is no such thing as the “Tunnel Type Extended Community”).
Can the authors please confirm that "Encapsulation Extended Community” is what
was intended?
Thanks,
—John
> On Oct 19, 2023, at 5:05 PM, RFC Errata System
> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been
Hi All,
I started to look at this and pretty quickly got lost in a maze of twisty
passages. RFC 8365 doesn’t mention the "ESI Label" Extended Community at all, I
suppose it gets dragged in through the reliance on RFC 7432 as an underlying
mechanism. Since the erratum proposes a new requirement
Hi BESS WG, RFC 8214 authors, errata submitter,
I was looking at this erratum against RFC 8214,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7562
The erratum proposes making the following change —
OLD:
In a multihoming All-Active scenario, there is no Designated Forwarder (DF)
election, and all
l protocols which run over TCP or UDP to sort of bless them for running on
> such new transport then I think this is not achievable in our short life
> time.
>
> Best,
> R.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 9:30 PM John Scudder wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 2024, at 2:
> On Feb 6, 2024, at 2:48 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> I have been using BGP over TCP over TLS and BGP over TCP over DTLS for years
> testing Sproute's SDWAN solution. Works perfectly fine. In fact it performs
> much better then BGP over TCP over IPSec.
Cool. There are a great many things in
TLS.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Linda
> -Original Message-
> From: John Scudder
> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 11:22 AM
> To: Linda Dunbar
> Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; Andrew Alston - IETF ;
> bess-cha...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org;
>
remove the mention of DTLS, which makes more sense to me, so I guess we
don’t need to keep discussing it.
—John
>
> Many thx,
> R.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:38 PM John Scudder
> wrote:
> I haven’t done a full review of this document, but I did notice that Roman
s/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EMln0MoNjY8Fex0l37MA8JE4Nvpdsho8KhznAatU81RneYnfGVqYueaJT2WggxyJfkcPuhO1uie8yo67KbfHq0s$
> We are working with the author to enhance the draft.
>
> We will add the reference to BGP over TLS. And remove the BGP over DTLS.
>
> Can those changes address your comments?
>
> Thank you,
> Linda
>
> -Original Me
I haven’t done a full review of this document, but I did notice that Roman
Danyliw balloted DISCUSS on version 15 [1], asking, among other things, "Are
there pointers for BGP over DTLS? Over TLS?”. This doesn’t appear to have been
addressed, either in Linda’s reply to Roman [2], or in the text
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-12: 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
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-13: 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
rs).
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-13=--html
>
> Please see zzh> below for two clarifications.
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
> -----Original Message-
> From: John Scu
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: Discuss
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
ohn Scudder via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: Discuss
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
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-08: 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
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-11: Discuss
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
FYI Warren Kumari kindly pointed out the section in question was already
removed in version 11. I’ve cleared my DISCUSS.
—John
> On Jul 5, 2023, at 6:10 PM, John Scudder via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
>
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11: Abstain
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
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11: Discuss
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
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-10: 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
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-09: Discuss
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
Hi Authors and WG,
I recently looked at some parts of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-07.
This isn't a full review but I noticed some things of concern that I thought
I'd share.
Regards,
--John
# COMMENTS
## Section 4
```
An ISF route received by a gateway PE with a D-PATH
as you suggested and in the process also secure
wider WG consensus for the naming change(s).
Thanks,
Ketan
On Wed, 23 Mar, 2022, 2:18 am John Scudder,
mailto:j...@juniper.net>> wrote:
On Mar 22, 2022, at 4:39 PM, Ketan Talaulikar
mailto:ketant.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Please
On Mar 22, 2022, at 4:39 PM, Ketan Talaulikar
mailto:ketant.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Please let us know if this addresses your concerns.
While I’m disappointed you’ve opted not to “leave the campsite cleaner than you
found it”, I can live with it, assuming we’ll then take up the promised
A update.
>
> I can volunteer to put together a short draft for this with your guidance.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Mar, 2022, 12:33 am John Scudder, wrote:
>> Hi Authors,
>>
>> I’m not sure if this poin
Hi Authors,
I’m not sure if this point was considered and rejected (in which case let’s
close it out in email please), or (more likely) just dropped?
> On Feb 18, 2022, at 4:48 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>> Question: SAFI 128 is called “MPLS-labeled VPN address” in the IANA
Hi Yao,
Thanks for bringing this up. I’ve followed up further in the main thread.
Regards,
—John
> On Feb 17, 2022, at 1:44 AM, liu.ya...@zte.com.cn wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Ron and John both mentioned that leveraging the existing AFI/SAFI may cause
> misunderstanding of the SRv6 service
Further to this point:
> On Feb 18, 2022, at 3:32 PM, John Scudder wrote:
>
>> On Feb 17, 2022, at 3:19 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
>>
>>> 2. One area of concern I would have hoped IDR might have looked into is, the
>>> document makes a creative use
r may advertise his routes to SAFI 1 and leak but no
> one has control over it and it is orthogonal to what happens in the SP
> network.
This is discussed in my previous reply, to Ketan.
Thanks,
—John
> With that I think that #3 and #4 are no longer a concern.
>
> Best regards,
> Robert
>
Hi Ketan,
> On Feb 17, 2022, at 3:19 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
>
>> 3. As Warren Kumari points out in his DISCUSS, “leaks happen”. Subsequent
>> discussion turned quickly to the assertion that no, they don’t, in VPN
>> address
>> families. Let’s accept that claim for the sake of
Hi Ketan,
> On Feb 17, 2022, at 3:19 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
>
>> 2. One area of concern I would have hoped IDR might have looked into is, the
>> document makes a creative use of the MPLS Label field of the NLRI to carry
>> the
>> Function part of the SID. This means the SID is effectively
have happened if the document had been cross-WGLC’d with IDR.
Possibly this will result in no input (that happens sometimes) of course. But,
if you start now, I don’t anticipate it will turn into the long pole for moving
the document forward.
Thanks,
—John
On Feb 17, 2022, at 2:15 PM, John Scudder
sometimes) of course. But,
if you start now, I don’t anticipate it will turn into the long pole for moving
the document forward.
Thanks,
—John
On Feb 17, 2022, at 2:15 PM, John Scudder
mailto:jgs=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>>
wrote:
Thanks, Matthew. I didn’t think of searching for it
okia - GB)
>
> Subject: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject l
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: Discuss
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
n-line with [jorge].
Thank you John.
Jorge
From: John Scudder mailto:j...@juniper.net>>
Date: Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:09 AM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>
Cc: The IESG mailto:i...@ietf.org>>,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized.
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-11: 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
Hi Jorge,
> On Nov 8, 2021, at 10:20 AM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
> wrote:
>
> First of all, thank you very much for your time and thorough review. You have
> great points, and the document is now in a much better shape. We really
> appreciate it.
> Please see in-line along
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-09: Discuss
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
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-14: 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
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-14: Discuss
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
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-11: 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
Hi Adrian,
Comments in line below.
> On May 14, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for the careful review.
>
>> DISCUSS:
>>
>> I have several points I’d like to discuss, listed below from most
>> general to most
Hi Gyan,
> On May 17, 2021, at 1:50 PM, Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
> So if GW2 connection to external was down but GW1 still has its connection to
> external. GW2 would auto discover GW1 over iBGP and GW2 would advertise both
> GW1 and GW2 as reachable gateways. However GW2 has its external peer
, and your spec would make
matters worse. It might be worth acknowledging this issue somewhere in the
document?”
I hope this is clearer now.
Thanks,
—John
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
> From: John Scudder
> Sent: 14 May 2021 22:25
> To: Adrian Farrel
> Cc: The IESG ; draft-
, 2021, at 4:12 PM, John Scudder wrote:
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for your reply. Pressed for time at the moment but one partial response:
On May 14, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Adrian Farrel
mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote:
Agree with you that "stuff happens." I think that what yo
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for your reply. Pressed for time at the moment but one partial response:
On May 14, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Adrian Farrel
mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote:
Agree with you that "stuff happens." I think that what you have described is a
window not a permanent situation.
When GW2
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-06: 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
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: Discuss
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
Works for me. Thanks for the additional discussion.
—John
> On Apr 15, 2021, at 6:35 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:40 PM John Scudder wrote:
>> Hi Donald,
>>
ke 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e...@gmail.com<mailto:d3e...@gmail.com>
Thanks,
Donald
===
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e...@gmail.com<mailto
he OAM packet to thus-and-such”. But right now, I think it’s neither fish
nor fowl.
Thanks,
—John
On Apr 13, 2021, at 10:41 AM, John Scudder
mailto:jgs=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>>
wrote:
Thanks, Donald. I agree that my discuss and comments are fixed by -09.
—John
On Apr 12, 2021, at 9:08 PM,
nald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e...@gmail.com<mailto:d3e...@gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 1:38 PM John Scudder
mailto:j...@juniper.net>> wrote:
Thanks for hopping threads, I shoulda caught that last one. Your proposed
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: 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
Eastlake
mailto:d3e...@gmail.com>> wrote:
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:04 PM John Scudder via Datatracker
mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote:
>
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: Discuss
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
Hi Donald,
Thanks for your reply.
On Apr 7, 2021, at 9:22 PM, Donald Eastlake
mailto:d3e...@gmail.com>> wrote:
...
2. Section 2.3:
EVPN Network OAM mechanisms MUST provide in-band monitoring
capabilities. As such, OAM messages MUST be encoded so that they
exhibit identical entropy
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: 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
ing along the line of (2). I’ll take
care of it in the next rev. soon.
Cheers,
Ali
From: John Scudder
Date: Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM
To: Cisco Employee
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forward...@ietf.org"
, BESS
Subject: Re: Second try: Router's MAC Extended C
Cheers,
Ali
From: John Scudder mailto:j...@juniper.net>>
Date: Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 11:12 AM
To:
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forward...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forward...@ietf.org>"
mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-fo
Hi Authors,
I haven’t seen a reply to this message from almost a month ago, trying again.
Even if you are still debating the answer amongst yourselves, it would be
comforting to me to receive a reply to the effect of “we’re still thinking
about this and will get back to you by $date”.
Thanks,
Hi Authors,
I just went through draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding to look for
answers to two questions:
1. Can a router advertise multiple different Router’s MAC values? If yes, what
is the receiver supposed to do?
2. Assuming the answer to question 1 is “no”, what is the receiver
Hi Authors,
I noticed the following text about error handling in -05:
When a PE receives an EVPN SMET route for a given (*,G), it
compares the received version flags from the route with its per-
PE stored version flags. If the PE finds that a version flag
associated
Hi Gyan,
On Apr 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Gyan Mishra wrote:
Sorry for the audio issues I had during the call. My apologies.
Just BTW, I am about 99% sure your problem was the following. You were logged
in to the call twice, from two devices. One device was muted, the other one
wasn’t. Let’s
routes that they have imports for. So, PE1 will not
receive the RT-8 route from PE100 to cause it any issue.
Regards,
Ali
From: John Scudder mailto:j...@juniper.net>>
Date: Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 12:33 PM
To: Cisco Employee mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "Mankamana Mishra (m
format.
I should just mention that for RT-4 changes that all the vendors did long time
ago, the approach (1) was adopted.
Regards,
Ali
From: John Scudder
Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 3:01 PM
To: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)"
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" ,
"draft-ietf-bess-evp
On Apr 25, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
wrote:
>
> Thanks for checking, is it visible now ?
Yes, thanks.
—John
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Hi Mankamana,
Is the agenda published somewhere? I don’t see it in the usual place
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2020-bess-01/session/bess is
empty).
Thanks,
—John
On Apr 16, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
mailto:mankamis=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>
wrote:
Hi All,
Regarding the proposal to remove the Leave Group Synchronization field from the
Multicast Leave Synch Route, the current proposal is inadequate. Below I
discuss why, and provide an alternate suggestion. For those who don’t want to
read my wall of text, my key motivation is simple:
-
[resending with corrected draft alias in cc, sorry about that]
Hi All,
A working group last call has been requested for
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07. Please reply to the list with your comments.
As usual note we cannot advance the draft without participation from the group.
Please get your
Hi All,
A working group last call has been requested for
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07. Please reply to the list with your comments.
As usual note we cannot advance the draft without participation from the group.
Please get your comments in before October 20, 2017.
We previously had a WGLC
On May 7, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> It's
> not unreasonable to expect that:
>
> 1. Acronyms be expanded on first use.
All the more so since the RFC Editor will insist on this anyway.
--John
___
BESS mailing list
84 matches
Mail list logo