Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Works!! Himanshu using iPad (so excuse the auto-corrects...) From: Sami Boutros Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 8:42:10 PM To: Shah, Himanshu; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US); Sami Boutros; Iftekhar Hussain Cc: Jeffrey Zhang; Alvaro Retana

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

How about this? In multihoming single-active scenario, for a given VPWS service instance, in steady state, as result of DF election, the Primary elected PE for the VPWS service instance should signal P=1,B=0, the Backup elected PE should signal P=0,B=1, and the rest of the PEs in the same ES

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Hi Sami – I recommend using Jorge’s text. That says, what originating multi-homed PEs should behave in single-active case. That along with the text below (on how remote should behave) will help. Thanks, Himanshu From: Sami Boutros [mailto:sbout...@vmware.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Hi Himanshu, Will changing the text as below make it clear ? In multihoming single-active scenario, for a given VPWS service instance, in steady state, a remote PE SHOULD receive P=1 from only one PE and a B-1 from only one PE. However during transient situations, a remote PE receiving P=1

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Hi Sami – I strongly suggest that more clarifying text is added. VPWS draft is introducing the Primary/backup extensions and it is confusing what the exact behavior should be for single-active multi-homing. Even in case of transition, how multi-homed PEs behavior wrt P/B when it would change

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

From: "Shah, Himanshu" > Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:54 PM To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)" >, Sami Boutros >, Sami Boutros

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Ahh...This makes sense. And NO it is not in the draft. Contrary, draft says that remote will accept only one as B=1 (may be to his liking..:-)) What you say below needs to be explicitly included in the draft. Please.. Thanks, Himanshu From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Himanshu, Just to reinforce what Sami is saying, I think the confusion comes between how many backup or redundant nodes can be in an ethernet-segment, and how many of them can signal B=1. There is only one PE signaling B=1. There may be more than 2 PEs in the ES, in which case there are more

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Hi Himanshu, From: "Shah, Himanshu" > Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:04 PM To: Sami Boutros >, Sami Boutros >, Iftekhar Hussain

[bess] IPR Disclosure Juniper's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay

Dear Ali Sajassi, Dennis Cai, Jorge Rabadan, Senthil Sathappan, Wim Henderickx, Senad Palislamovic: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Interconnect Solution for EVPN Overlay networks" (draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on and

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Hi Sami – Thanks for clarifications. The rabadan-evpn-pref-df has the right idea (did not know about it...) Following text from the draft – In multihoming single-active scenario, the DF election will determine who the primary and the backup PEs are, and only those PEs will set the P

[bess] IPR Disclosure Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy

Dear Ali Sajassi, Samir Thoria, John Drake, Wen Lin, Keyur Patel, Derek M. Yeung: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN" (draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on and has been posted on the "IETF

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Hi Sami, Certainly, if it helps, certainly we could chat via phone sometime. PWE3 model is different than what your doc is proposing. No, I am not looking for Yang model – I am co-authoring one. I am looking for clarity and thoroughness. Thanks, Iftekhar From: Sami Boutros

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Hi Iftekhar, We can have a phone call to go over this, if you like, I will send you my availability in contact in a private e-mail. From: Iftekhar Hussain > Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 10:45 AM To: Sami Boutros

Re: [bess] Call for adoption: draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-01

Support as a co-author. There is an IPR related to this draft and IETF should get Cisco “standard notification" on it shortly. Thanks, Samir. On 1/31/17, 6:58 AM, "Thomas Morin" wrote: Hello working group, This email starts a two-week poll on adopting

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Hi Sami, To make my comments clear (in case it didn’t come through earlier emails), I am summarizing my comments again. 1. Clearly identify the role of AC and ES for point-to-point services 2. Clearly identify and document the reference model for the point-to-point services. For

Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-04

Support and not aware of IPR related to this draft either. Thanks, Wen On 2/7/17, 6:06 PM, "BESS on behalf of Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" wrote: Support, not aware of IPR related to this draft On 07/02/2017, 07:42,