Re: [bess] [Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10

I agree with Vasilenko. The meaning of the label is given by the encapsulation, e.g. for the EVPN family, label=VNI if the bgp encapsulation extended community indicates VXLAN, and label=MPLS-label if the encapsulation indicates MPLS. In this document, the label is a transposed function if the

Re: [bess] [Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10

Hi all, About this point: 1) In Section 3.2.1, the draft transposes bits into the MPLS Label field. This is surprising because MPLS appears nowhere in the forwarding plane. Maybe we shouldn't advertise an MPLS label? I have seen in some BESS documents that this field is called “Service Label”,

Re: [bess] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Thanks john for providing input. New version of draft accommodated all of these changes. Mankamana From: John E Drake Date: Friday, February 11, 2022 at 8:13 AM To: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) , Benjamin Kaduk Cc: The IESG , draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org ,

[bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-18.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 : IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN Authors : Ali Sajassi Samir Thoria

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, Ron and John both mentioned that leveraging the existing AFI/SAFI may cause misunderstanding of the SRv6 service routes. We encountered this problem during implementation and submitted a draft talking about this. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lz-bess-srv6-service-capability-02

Re: [bess] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Eric, Thanks, uploaded the new version addressing your comment. Pending: 1. About number restarting – There was comment by Alvaro where he wanted these numbers to be restarting to differentiate sender and receiver processing EV> I am sure that Alvaro will not mind have some text, even

[bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-17.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 : IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN Authors : Ali Sajassi Samir Thoria

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, Ron and John both mentioned that leveraging the existing AFI/SAFI may cause misunderstanding of the SRv6 service routes. We encountered this problem during implementation and submitted a draft talking about this.

[bess] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with COMMENT)

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

[bess] Erik Kline's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS)

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

Re: [bess] [Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:20 AM Ron Bonica via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Reviewer: Ron Bonica > Review result: Not Ready > > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for > draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services.txt. > These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon

Hi Jorge I agree that having the classification of all IP tunnel that convey Ethernet Payload not limited to RFC 8365 as NVO tunnels so all inclusive of MPLSoGRE, MPLSoUDP, VXLAN, VXLAN-GPE, GENEVE, NVGRE So now you would have 2 categories the NVO category above and the transport category which

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi John, As you have quoted my note in point #4 I feel that I need to comment on it. So yes original discussions and major contributions of this work were focusing on VPN use case and I admit when carefully re- reading it to find some text there beyond VPN use case. So we discussed it among

[bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

Re: [bess] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10

Ketan, Mislabeling attributes is not only sloppy, but it can be dangerous. The danger is that somebody might read the label and believe it. Or conversely, that our labels will become meaningless, even when they are correct, because people learn that things are so frequently mislabeled.

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Alvaro, Thanks for your detailed review and comments. Please check inline below for responses. We have also posted an update for the draft to address comments from you and other reviewers: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11 On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 11:29

[bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11.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 : SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services Authors : Gaurav Dawra Clarence Filsfils

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon

Hi Gyan, Thank you for your feedback and support. The document attempts to address all tunnels that can be used in EVPN Multi-homing PEs. In that respect, we should probably do a better job defining what those tunnels are. The division at the moment is: non-IP MPLS, NVO tunnels, SRv6. *

Re: [bess] Submitting comments against draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-02

Thanks Marek. I will go through them and just reply on-thread (here) with any questions or clarifications. Regards, Luc André Luc André Burdet | Cisco | laburdet.i...@gmail.com | Tel: +1 613 254 4814 From: Marek Hajduczenia Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 10:17 To: 'Luc André

Re: [bess] Submitting comments against draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-02

Hi Marek, You can just submit them to the alias, or to the authors (draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432...@ietf.org). (In tracker there are 2 links for ‘Email authors’ and ‘Email WG’) I am preparing an up-revision soon so your comments are welcome and timely (PDF

Re: [bess] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Roman, Thanks for your review. Please check inline for a response to your proposed text change. On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:47 AM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-10: No

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] EVPN service carving with ingress VLAN translation

Hi Sasha, Thanks for your response. I agree, using a manually configured ID is the best option when VID translation is performed at one or more ingress PEs that are part of the multi-homed group to obtain a predictable default DF election result.. That said, the current situation is, different