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
Ketan Talaulikar
Got it, thanks.
And see my email that crossed yours on the wire, regarding where to target it,
etc.
—John
On Mar 22, 2022, at 4:57 PM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
Hi John,
I'll work on the proposal right after this IETF and share it with you before
posting.
Most likely it goes trivially as
Hi John,
I'll work on the proposal right after this IETF and share it with you
before posting.
Most likely it goes trivially as you suggested and in the process also
secure wider WG consensus for the naming change(s).
Thanks,
Ketan
On Wed, 23 Mar, 2022, 2:18 am John Scudder, wrote:
> On Mar
On Mar 22, 2022, at 4:39 PM, Ketan Talaulikar
mailto:ketant.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Please let us know if this addresses your concerns.
While I’m disappointed you’ve opted not to “leave the campsite cleaner than you
found it”, I can live with it, assuming we’ll then take up the promised
Hi John,
Thanks for those details. I agree that there shouldn't be an issue with
your bare-bones proposal. An update with this text change and [1] has just
been posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-14
Please let us know if this addresses your concerns.
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
Yes, you’re right that 9012 is another possible ref.
Regarding the option of doing it in the current spec —
- I hear you that you’re not certain you’d be capturing every relevant
reference, however I think this is a case of “best is the enemy of good”.
Listing the known references would be an
Hi John,
This point was discussed amongst some of the authors. We were not sure if
we had got all the references to the specs that do this kind of handling
for "embedded label". RFC9012 came up as another possible reference.
I was wondering if we could go about this change in a separate (AD
Hi Authors,
I’m not sure if this point was considered and rejected (in which case let’s
close it out in email please), or (more likely) just dropped?
> On Feb 18, 2022, at 4:48 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>> Question: SAFI 128 is called “MPLS-labeled VPN address” in the IANA
Thanks Murray. Version 21 covers all your comments as well.
Mankamana
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 5:12 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , slitkows.i...@gmail.com
Subject:
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
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-20: 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.)
Hi Jie
Inline
Thanks
Hooman
From: Idr On Behalf Of Dongjie (Jimmy)
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 3:08 AM
To: Susan Hares ; i...@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] [pim] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022)
Hi Sue and authors,
I've read the latest version of
Hi Sue and authors,
I've read the latest version of this document and have some questions,
I understand this document provides one mechanism to build P2MP Trees using the
tree SIDs and the unicast SR SIDs. While it is not quite clear to me how much
it is analogous to SR policy, and whether
14 matches
Mail list logo
