Hi Jeff,
Many thanks for the confirmation and detailed explanation / review. We will
move forward with the new code point for EVPN.
With respect to your comment in the last paragraph, your understanding is
correct - primary use case for this attribute is for it to be carried in
Type 1 route withi
Hi Daniel,
thank you for spotting it, fixed.
I enjoyed our discussion and, again, thank you for the review and your
thoughtful comments.
Best regards,
Greg
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 1:32 PM Daniel Migault
wrote:
> Thanks for the response and explanation. I am fine with the text you
> proposed an
Hi Stewart,
I hope you did not mean that the draft should not be presented. Whether
detailed discussions can happen after the presentation in the session itself
depends on many factors (we quite often run out of time in the sessions), and
the presentation itself quite often is a good way to sti
Thanks for the response and explanation. I am fine with the text you proposed
and I consider all my concerns being addressed.
I am reading your text as implicitly suggesting the following lines of your
response, which seems reasonable.
"""
it is difficult to make any assumptions on how the con
Hi Daniel,
thank you for the additional information. I understand your concerns and
agree that it is helpful to provide implementors and operators with useful
information about the potential impact the new functionality may
demonstrate in the network and how to mitigate the risks. I believe it is
i
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the response Greg. This seems to go in the right direction, but I
think it would be nice to detail a bit on the negative impact that may result
from the fast-fail over.
"""
unnecessary failover negatively impacting the multicast service
"""
I apology to appear being maybe a
Hi Matthew
I have taken a look at this draft and think that it needs close review in PALS
and ought to have a review in TICTOC.
It needs a much clearer description of the scenario. For instance in Figure 3
are A and G the same clock domain or is one the master. I think that for this
to work one
In my view, the discussion on this draft demonstrate that it is not yet ready
for detailed discussion by these working groups next week.
- Stewart
> On 11 Nov 2020, at 16:32, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote:
>
> Hi Andy, Stewart,
>
> Please see zzh> below.
>
> From: Andrew G. Malis mailto:a
