[bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb / meeting agenda

2020-11-09 Thread Neeraj Malhotra (nmalhotr) 

Hi Stephane, Mankamana,

Regarding "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb", I don't think we need a dedicated 
slot for this in the meeting next week, but we would like to ask for WGLC. This 
draft has been revised to address the concerns that were raised in the last 
BESS meeting, specifically related to link BW attribute definition (please see 
attached thread).

Could you please put on your agenda for next week's meeting to poll the WG that 
there are no further concerns?

Thanks,
Neeraj

--- Begin Message ---


-- Forwarded message -
From: Neeraj Malhotra 
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [bess] New Extended Community for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) 
Cc: John Scudder , Jeff Haas , 
bess@ietf.org 



Hi John, Jeff,

FYI - latest revision of this draft corrects the BW attribute to be transitive 
inline with Ali's explanation below: 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-07.txt. Please 
do let us know if there are any further concerns.

4.2.  EVPN Link Bandwidth Extended Community
 
   A new EVPN Link Bandwidth extended community is defined to signal
   local ES link bandwidth to remote PEs.  This extended-community is
   defined of type 0x06 (EVPN).  IANA is requested to assign a sub-type
   value of 0x10 for the EVPN Link bandwidth extended community, of type
   0x06 (EVPN).  EVPN Link Bandwidth extended community is defined as
   transitive.
 
   Link bandwidth extended community described in [BGP-LINK-BW] for
   layer 3 VPNs was considered for re-use here.  This Link bandwidth
   extended community is however defined in [BGP-LINK-BW] as optional
   non-transitive.  Since it is not possible to change deployed behavior
   of extended-community defined in [BGP-LINK-BW], it was decided to
   define a new one.  In inter-AS scenarios, link-bandwidth needs to be
   signaled to eBGP neighbors.  When signaled across AS boundary, this
   attribute can be used to achieve optimal load-balancing towards
   source PEs from a different AS.  This is applicable both when next-
   hop is changed or unchanged across AS boundaries.


Thanks,
Neeraj

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:14 PM Ali Sajassi (sajassi) 
 wrote:
John, Jeff:

 

During the presentation of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb -03 at the BESS WG 
meeting, you had a question/concern regarding why we are defining a new EC if 
we are doing conditional transitive. First, I’d like to make a correction to 
the preso by saying that the transitivity is not conditional and we will 
correct this in the next rev of the draft. So, the EC is simply transitive at 
all time. Given the EC defined in draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-07.txt is 
non-transitive, we cannot use this EC for our application. That’s why we are 
defining a new one. 

 

Cheers,

Ali

 
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

--- End Message ---
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2020-11-09 Thread Alvaro Retana 
On October 13, 2020 at 2:55:07 AM, Ali Sajassi wrote:


Ali:

Hi!


> Thanks very much for your comments and sorry for the delay, please refer to
> my replies marked with [AS].

I looked at the replies and I'm clearing my DISCUSS.

There is one outstanding issue that I trust you to complete before
Martin approves:  The reference to draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps needs
to be Normative.  Ben has this same point listed in his current
DISCUSS [1].

Thank you for also addressing the questions from John Scudder about
multiple MAC ECs.


Alvaro.

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR all for draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-02

2020-11-09 Thread Hassen, Clayton 

As a contributor, I support the adoption of this draft and I am not aware of 
any IPR.


-- CH


From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 at 4:42 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" , 
"draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p...@ietf.org" 

Subject: [EXT]WG Adoption and IPR all for draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-02
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: , , , 
, , 
Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 04:42:21 -0800

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Monday 16th November 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1]  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp/





External Email: Please use caution when opening links and attachments / 
Courriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et documents joints
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] WGLC and IPR poll on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-03

2020-11-09 Thread slitkows.ietf 
Hello WG,

 

This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-03 [1]. We add an additional week
due to the upcoming IETF meeting.

 

This poll runs until * the 30th Of  November *.

 

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF
IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from
all the Authors and Contributors. 

There is currently no IPR disclosed.

 

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in
conformance with IETF rules.

 

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2]. 

 

Thank you,

Stephane & Matthew

 

[1]

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

 

 

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess