Re: [bess] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ali, The suggested changes look good to me. Thanks Suresh > On Jan 22, 2019, at 4:20 AM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) wrote: > > Suresh, > Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my replies below > marked with "AS>". > > On 1/9/19, 8:03 PM, "Suresh Krishnan" wrote: > >

Re: [bess] Question regarding RFC6625 and this draft-->//RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13.txt

Hi Jeffrey, The sender PE need to work on (*,*) tunnel for a while (switch-over timer) and then switch to the (S,G) tunnel. To quote RFC6513 section 7.1.1 The decision to bind a particular C-flow (designated as (C-S,C-G)) to a particular P-tunnel, or to switch a particular C-flow to a

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane

Hey Wim, Thanks for (not  ) reading. Yes, MPLS-SFC was certainly in mind, but we wrote the initial document only for NSH, and so the document is named for that and fully scoped for that. I believe that draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation is “only” an interface encapsulation of NSH.

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane

Wim, The subject draft was designed w/ NSH in mind. We added an MPLS representation of the NSH later, which is the subject of the first draft you referenced, below. The way the subject draft is written, the representation of the NSH and the type of transport tunnel can change on a hop-by-hop

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane

I need to get into more details, but the current draft is written with draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-04 dataplane in mind. I believe that the draft can be useful with other dataplanes like: draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation and draft-guichard-spring-nsh-s So I would like the see the BGP control plane

Re: [bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)

That all sounds good, thanks! Ben. > On Jan 22, 2019, at 2:59 AM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) wrote: > > Ben, > Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my replies below > marked with "AS>". > > On 1/9/19, 1:28 PM, "Ben Campbell" > wrote: > >Ben

Re: [bess] (Action required from Author)Re: Time to gather WG document status update

Mankamana, Matthew, Stephane, Update about two drafts: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags * This is a very simple draft defining an extended community to propagate the IPv6 ND information along with MAC/IP routes in EVPN. * It is used (and referred) in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd,

Re: [bess] REMINDER: Wg Adoption and IPR poll for draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-07

WG This draft directly addresses a working group milestone for an MVPN YANG model, has been developed over a significant period of time and I have not seen any objection to adoption. I am therefore closing this poll for adoption with the conclusion that there is consensus to adopt this draft

Re: [bess] Poll to progress draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates without implementation

Dear chairs and WG, I strongly believe we should progress draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bum-procedure-updates for the following reasons: * The draft defines a number of fundamental routes that are critical for the deployment of multicast technologies in EVPN, especially the S-PMSI A-D and Leaf-AD

[bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-06.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 : (PBB-)EVPN Seamless Integration with (PBB-)VPLS Authors : Ali Sajassi Samer

Re: [bess] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)

Suresh, Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my replies below marked with "AS>". On 1/9/19, 8:03 PM, "Suresh Krishnan" wrote: Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: No Objection When

Re: [bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)

Ben, Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my replies below marked with "AS>". On 1/9/19, 1:28 PM, "Ben Campbell" wrote: Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: No Objection When responding,

Re: [bess] Deborah Brungard's Yes on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)

Deborah, Thanks for your review and feedback. You are spot on. If the document was talking about only VPLS/PBB-VPLS or EVPN/PBB-EVPN, then BCP would be appropriate but this document specifies the mechanism needed for an EVPN/PBB-EVPN PEs to simultaneously interoperate with both EVPN/PBB-EVPN

Re: [bess] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05

Peter, Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my replies below marked with "AS>". On 12/19/18, 8:15 AM, "Pete Resnick" wrote: Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review result: Ready with Issues I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area