Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

In-line with WH> On 20/11/15 01:01, "BESS on behalf of thomas.mo...@orange.com" wrote: >2015-11-19, Henderickx, Wim (Wim): >> WH> I vote for a an evolution of switches/TORs that have proper >> support for this. I hope some HW

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

On 20/11/15 01:05, "thomas.mo...@orange.com" wrote: >2015-11-20, Haoweiguo: >> WH> ok now we have not discussed the constraints some HW vendors have >> with respect to global VNIDs. To make this work all VNID/Labels need >> to be globally unique. Hm > > [weiguo2]:

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

2015-11-20, John E Drake: That presupposes that the group likes either of the two proposed solutions in your draft. John, I think Lucy's "two solutions" was referring to draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc solution and the 3-label Optionc MPLS/MPLS/UDP solution described by Wim. -Thomas

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

Share my 2 cent. Cloud providers want to tunnel its customer traffic through DC (AS)BR. Option C is a way to realize it. Both solutions summarized by Thomas have no change on WAN VPN side and seamlessly work with WAN VPN option C. However, to support either solution, DC has to do some

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

That is my 2 cents. Anyone can share his/her opinion. :) Lucy -Original Message- From: John E Drake [mailto:jdr...@juniper.net] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 10:54 AM To: Lucy yong; EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); bess@ietf.org Subject: RE: [bess]

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

+1 -Original Message- From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John E Drake Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 12:19 PM To: EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com; Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); bess@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Lucy, My

Re: [bess] draft-morin-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

Besides the below IPR, I am not aware of any other IP related to the draft. https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2697/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2696/ Thanks, -Nehal ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

IMHO if TOR chip vendors can confirm they are seriously looking at MPLS/MPLS/UDP, Wim’s suggestion makes all the sense since we know it works and scales. My 2 cents. Jorge On 11/20/15, 9:51 AM, "BESS on behalf of UTTARO, JAMES" wrote: >+1

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

IMHO: voting on this thread does not make a sense. Both solutions will work and scales. Lucy -Original Message- From: Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge) [mailto:jorge.raba...@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 1:32 PM To: UTTARO, JAMES; John E Drake; EXT -

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

Lucy, there is no such thing as voting in IETF WGs And I haven't seen anything like voting as part of this discussion. Thank you Martin Le 20/11/2015 20:57, Lucy yong a écrit : IMHO: voting on this thread does not make a sense. Both solutions will work and scales. Lucy -Original

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

Martin, Sorry not to express my mind precisely. I mean to say, debating which solution is a better solution here does not make a sense. There is no need for the two solutions interwork. Regards, Lucy -Original Message- From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

Lucy, Thanks for your clarification. Yet, the fact that two solutions need not interwork does not render useless a debate on the merits of each. -m Le 20/11/2015 21:36, Lucy yong a écrit : Martin, Sorry not to express my mind precisely. I mean to say, debating which solution is a better

Re: [bess] One question about Route-type2 usage in EVPN base protocol

Hi Weiguo, I would recommend you to check out the L2VPN archives… we discussed this at length. For instance: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/current/msg04519.html But check the other emails in the thread. Sending one or two routes, really depend on how the learning is done. Hope it

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

2015-11-20, Haoweiguo: WH> ok now we have not discussed the constraints some HW vendors have with respect to global VNIDs. To make this work all VNID/Labels need to be globally unique. Hm > [weiguo2]: In SDN scenario, a virtual network normally is represented by a global VN ID or MPLS VPN

Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-multicast-damping-01

WG This WG LC has ended some time ago but without any comment on the draft. It might not have any flaw but I'd like to have the evidence that the document has been reviewed. Please take a moment to read it and get back to this list to share your views. Thanks -m Le 13/10/2015 15:40, Martin

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

+1 More popular deployments in data center is VXLAN/NVGRE, so the VXLAN/NVGRE and MPLS VPN network interconnecting is necessary. If all TOR/NVEs support MPLSoGRE/oUDP, Wim's solution also can be used, but currently it's not practical to require all TOR/NVEs to support MPLS/MPLS/UDPorGRE.