[bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-14.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF. Title : L2L3 VPN Multicast MIB Authors : Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang Hiroshi Tsunoda

Re: [bess] Some questions on E-Tree (RFC8317)  services with VXLAN Encapsulation: is it feasible? is it necessary? is it under  definition already?

Hi Adrian, Thanks for your detailed specification!O(∩_∩)O~ Your reply is exactly what I want to express. I suggest to define a B flag for the SRP in PCInitiate message too. Hope PCE-GMPLS draft could take it into consideration. And thanks Dhruv for the help!O(∩_∩)O~ Best Regards, Quan

Re: [bess] Some questions on E-Tree (RFC8317)  services with VXLAN Encapsulation: is it feasible? is it necessary? is it under  definition already?

Thanks for your explanations. So the extensions is based on GENEVE and RFC8317, Glad to see your working on EVPN extensions for GENEVE in the future. I have mixed GENEVE with VXLAN, and I didn't see a leaf-label extension in GENEVE, so I asked the question. I get the point now, Best

Re: [bess] Some questions on E-Tree (RFC8317)  services with VXLAN Encapsulation: is it feasible? is it necessary? is it under  definition already?

Hi Adrian, Thanks for your detailed specification!O(∩_∩)O~ Your reply is exactly what I want to express. I suggest to define a B flag for the SRP in PCInitiate message too. Hope PCE-GMPLS draft could take it into consideration. And thanks Dhruv for the help!O(∩_∩)O~ Best Regards, Quan

Re: [bess] Some questions on E-Tree (RFC8317)  services with VXLAN Encapsulation: is it feasible? is it necessary? is it under  definition already?

Thanks for your explanations. So the extensions is based on GENEVE and RFC8317, Glad to see your working on EVPN extensions for GENEVE in the future. I have mixed GENEVE with VXLAN, and I didn't see a leaf-label extension in GENEVE, so I asked the question. I get the point now, Best

[bess] bess - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 101

Dear Stephane Litkowski, The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is the scheduled session information followed by the original request. bess Session 1 (2:00:00) Tuesday, Afternoon Session II 1550-1820 Room Name: Buckingham size: 175

[bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF. Title : IP Prefix Advertisement in EVPN Authors : Jorge Rabadan Wim Henderickx

Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-07.txt

Hi Eric, I'm fine with the version 8. Thanks a lot for the changes. Speaking as WG chair, Due to the substantial changes in the document, I will initiate a new short WGLC for this document soon. Brgds, -Original Message- From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:ero...@juniper.net] Sent:

Re: [bess] Some questions on E-Tree (RFC8317)  services with VXLAN Encapsulation: is it feasible? is it necessary? is it under  definition already?

Thanks for your explanations. So the extensions is based on GENEVE and RFC8317, Glad to see your working on EVPN extensions for GENEVE in the future. I have mixed GENEVE with VXLAN, and I didn't see a leaf-label extension in GENEVE, so I asked the question. I get the point now, Best

Re: [bess] Some questions on E-Tree (RFC8317)  services with VXLAN Encapsulation: is it feasible? is it necessary? is it under  definition already?

Thanks for your explanations. So the extensions is based on GENEVE and RFC8317, Glad to see your working on EVPN extensions for GENEVE in the future. I have mixed GENEVE with VXLAN, and I didn't see a leaf-label extension in GENEVE, so I asked the question. I get the point now, Best