Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, wrt Inter-AS Option B

Hi John, I think there have been some disconnection that need to be cleared up first. Section 10.2 of the evpn-overlay has the following two basic points about inter-as option B: 1. aliasing works as specified in RFC 7432 (plus clarification in the evpn-overlay draft) 2. mass-withdraw is only

Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, wrt Inter-AS Option B

Jeffrey, I don't think anyone would argue that the proper solution to per-ES mass withdraw is to include the originating router's address in Ethernet AD and MAC Advertisement routes and the only discussion is the best way to encode this information. Your suggestion of having an ingress PE use

Re: [bess] IPR Disclosure Alcatel-Lucent's Statement about IPR related to draft-dolganow-bess-mvpn-expl-track

I am not aware of any other ipr than the one disclosed on the bess mailing list. --Jayant -Original Message- From: Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG) [mailto:andrew.dolga...@nokia.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:24 AM To: draft-dolganow-bess-mvpn-expl-tr...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org;

Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay / section 5.1.3 vs. section 9 (was Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps)

Thomas, Comments inline. Yours Irrespectively, John > -Original Message- > From: Thomas Morin [mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 8:47 AM > To: John E Drake; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US); BESS; draft-ietf-bess-evpn- > over...@tools.ietf.org; Ali Sajassi

Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay / section 5.1.3 vs. section 9 (was Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps)

Sounds good. Thanks, -Thomas 2016-06-15, John E Drake: Thomas, Comments inline. Yours Irrespectively, John -Original Message- From: Thomas Morin [mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 8:47 AM To: John E Drake; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US); BESS;

[bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay / section 5.1.3 vs. section 9 (was Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps)

Hi John, Ali, Through the discussion below it appeared that section 9 and section 5.1.3 needed adjustments to be brought in sync, and indeed there were some changes in last revision. However, I don't think the cleanup/precision is complete yet: - section 5.1.3 says "the MPLS label field in

Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, wrt Inter-AS Option B

Hi Ali, > -Original Message- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:59 AM > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; bess@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, wrt > Inter-AS Option B > >

Re: [bess] IPR Disclosure Alcatel-Lucent's Statement about IPR related to draft-dolganow-bess-mvpn-expl-track

All, Please note that this should cover the IPR disclosures I followed up on as per my earlier email to the list. I am not aware of any other undisclosed IPRs. Andrew On 2016-06-14, 5:46 AM, "IETF Secretariat" wrote: >Dear Andrew Dolganow, Jayant Kotalwar, Eric C. Rosen, Zhaohui (Jeffrey)

[bess] Extended poll [Re: Poll for adoption: draft-dolganow-bess-mvpn-expl-track-02]

All, as a heads-up an IPR disclosure has been made recently: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2807/ I'll give this call one more week. For those who haven't expressed their opinion, please do so. -m Le 30/05/2016 17:55, Martin Vigoureux a écrit : Hello working group, This email starts a