Re: [bess] [Errata Verified] RFC9135 (7683)

Hi John I agree that there is a typo and that needs to be corrected (i.e., s/PE2/PE1 in line 4). With respect to “Notes”, I am not sure if I am reading it incorrectly: > Notes > - > PE1 will use ARP table for forwarding traffic to PE2 - seems like typo I am reading it as there is a “typo”

Re: [bess] [Errata Verified] RFC9135 (7683)

Hi Ali, I already verified this. I can request that the note be revised, but I wanted to double-check if you really disagree with it, or if you were just reading fast. The note says: "PE1 will use ARP table for forwarding traffic to PE2” You say: "PE1 does use the ARP table for

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8365 (7735)

Thanks, Ali. By the way, 7432bis has expired. Please consider refreshing it. —John > On Feb 11, 2024, at 2:49 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) wrote: > > Hi John, > RFC8365 relies heavily on base MPLS-EVPN RFC (i.e., RFC7432/RFC7432bis) and > assumes the reader is very familiar with

Re: [bess] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9252 (7652)

Any update on this? On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 12:03 AM Rebecca VanRheenen wrote: > HI Andrew, > > We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as > editorial. > Please note that we have changed the “Type” of the following errata > report to “Technical”. As Stream Approver,

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8365 (7735)

Hi John, RFC8365 relies heavily on base MPLS-EVPN RFC (i.e., RFC7432/RFC7432bis) and assumes the reader is very familiar with RFC7432/7432bis. ESI label as described in RFC7432/RFC7432bis is used for split-horizon filtering; however, VxLAN-EVPN (RFC8365) doesn’t use split-horizon filtering

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9135 (7684)

Hi John, Yes, it refers to the Encapsulation Extended Community (RFC 9012: The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (rfc-editor.org)) The use of the encapsulation extended community with EVPN is introduced first in

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9135 (7686)

Hi Authors and all, While we are looking at RFC 9135, please look at this one too. Looks reasonable. Thanks and happy Friday, —John > On Oct 20, 2023, at 10:39 AM, RFC Errata System > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9135, > "Integrated Routing and Bridging

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9135 (7684)

Looks right (there is no such thing as the “Tunnel Type Extended Community”). Can the authors please confirm that "Encapsulation Extended Community” is what was intended? Thanks, —John > On Oct 19, 2023, at 5:05 PM, RFC Errata System > wrote: > > The following errata report has been

[bess] [Errata Verified] RFC9135 (7683)

The following errata report has been verified for RFC9135, "Integrated Routing and Bridging in Ethernet VPN (EVPN)". -- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7683 -- Status: Verified

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8365 (7735)

Hi All, I started to look at this and pretty quickly got lost in a maze of twisty passages. RFC 8365 doesn’t mention the "ESI Label" Extended Community at all, I suppose it gets dragged in through the reliance on RFC 7432 as an underlying mechanism. Since the erratum proposes a new requirement