Hi Jorge,
I still don't agree that the procedures on Leaf-5 are already in
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11.
Note that the key of RT1 route is , not just .
Take the DGW1 of the Bump-in-the-wire use case for example,
If the DGW1 receives a RT-5 route R5 (IPL=24, IP=SN1
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Gateway Auto-Discovery and Route Advertisement for Segment Routing
Enabled Site Interconnection'
(draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-13.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the BGP Enabled ServiceS Working Group.
The IESG
Hi Yubao,
More in-line.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: wang.yub...@zte.com.cn
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 5:35 PM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re:Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02
Hi Jorge,
I don't agree with you for that the rec
Hi Jorge,
I don't agree with you for that the recursive resolution for such ESI overlay
index is already there.
Current recursive resolution is very different from such ESI overlay index.
Please see in-line with [Yubao].
Thanks,
Yubao
原始邮件
发件人：Rabadan,Jorge(Noki
Dear draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp authors,
I have some comments about yesterday’s presentation of revision 03. In the
slides, this caught my attention:
“Current Updates (Version 03)
• Includes procedures for binding MVPN/EVPN service to an ingress-replication
P-tunnel in a Segment Routing
Hi Yubao,
Assuming we agree we can’t have a RT5 with non-zero GW-IP and non-zero ESI,
I’ll try to compare using a) gw-ip *or* b) ESI in the RT5 for this use case
when leaf-5 is a non-upgraded PE:
a) non-zero GW-IP. Suppose if Leaf-5 is a non-upgraded PE but it complies with
draft-evpn-prefix-a
Hi Jorge,
Please see in-line with [Yubao_2].
Thanks,
Yubao
原始邮件
发件人：Rabadan,Jorge(Nokia-US/MountainView)
收件人：王玉保10045807;
抄送人：bess@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2021年07月28日 18:18
主 题 ：Re: Re:Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02
Hi Yubao,
Please see in-line wi
Hi Yubao,
Please see in-line with [jorge].
Thanks.
Jorge
From: wang.yub...@zte.com.cn
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 9:53 AM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re:Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02
Hi Jorge,
Thanks for your email,
Hi Jorge,
Thanks for your email, but I still don't understand why an ESI is needed here.
I know there is a static-route 1.1.1.1 on Leaf-2, but my question is that how
leaf-2 knows the overlay nexthop of 50.0.0.0/24 is 1.1.1.1 (by which that ARP
entry is found out at last)?
As you illu
Michael,
The chairs asked me to take my comments to the list, so here you are.
1. Section 2.6 – RT5 synch
* using non-zero ESI *and* non-zero GW-IP in the IP Prefix routes is
non-backwards compatible with draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement and
will break interoperability with
10 matches
Mail list logo
