Robert,
Thank you very much for the feedback.
If using your suggested Route Target approach to represent the SDWAN Instance
ID, does it mean that a SDWAN Edge has to use the same approach to configure
the VRF for SDWAN instances?
If the edge node supports both traditional VPN and SDWAN, will
Support and not aware of any undisclosed IPR
From: BESS on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com"
Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 6:28 AM
To: 'BESS'
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-04
Hi WG,
This email
Hi Linda,
I think you are mixing data plane and control plane.
In SDWAN data plane is of no issue as you are interconnecting sites in a
given VPN over mesh of secure tunnels.
You are asking how to keep control plane separate between VPN instances.
This is precisely what RFC4364 does already and
IDR experts:
SDWAN is an overlay network arching over multiple types of networks. A SDWAN
edge node may need to map client traffic to different SDWAN network instances
(or segmentations).
It might not be feasible to use the AS number in the BGP message to
differentiate the SDWAN network
Hi Linda,
It seems that using another SAFI is a possible solution.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 12:54 AM
To: Huaimo Chen ; i...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private
I am unaware of any undisclosed IPR applicable to this document.
On 2/26/20 9:25 AM, slitkows.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi WG,
This email starts a two weeks Working GroupLast Call on
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-04 [2]
Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also,
