Hi Haibo,
Thanks for your feedback and confirmation. Indeed the “alternate steering
mechanism” is better. Will push this change in the next revision.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
Sent: 28 September 2021 15:31
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; bess@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6
:13
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; bess@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org; Aissaoui, Mustapha
(Nokia - CA/Ottawa) ; Shraddha Hegde
Subject: RE: SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)
Hi Ketan,
I think the overall description
along with any other comments as part of the AD review updates.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Sent: 23 July 2021 22:10
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: spr...@ietf.org; Shraddha Hegde ; bess@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: SRv6 BGP based
. Some of
those concepts are applicable for MPLS as well and not SRv6 specific.
We (authors) will work on some text proposal and get back to the WG next week.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Sent: 23 July 2021 19:20
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Rajesh M
; Rajesh M ; R
of this document
and we can say so if that helps.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Salih K A
Sent: 22 July 2021 15:35
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Rajesh M
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services
(draft-ietf-bess-srv6
dicates a preference for steering over SR
Policy using color extended community.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Rajesh M
Sent: 22 July 2021 14:44
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Salih K A
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Servic
#section-8.8
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Salih K A
Sent: 22 July 2021 14:02
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Rajesh M
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [spring] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services
(draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)
Hi Ketan,
1 clarification
>; Rabadan,
Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>; Rajesh M
mailto:mraj...@juniper.net>>; Rajesh M
mailto:40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>>;
Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) mailto:ket...@cisco.com>>;
gdawra.i...@gmail.com<mailto:gdawra.i...@gmail.com
Resending with individual email addressed trimmed
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: 22 July 2021 13:13
To: Rajesh M ; Rajesh M
; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain
View) ; gdawra.i...@gmail.com; Clarence Filsfils
(cfilsfil) ; rob...@raszuk.net; bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: spr
Hi Eduard,
I do believe that BGP ADD-PATH mechanism can be leveraged for co-existence.
There are also other design approaches to achieve the same.
I am copying the authors of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-agrawal-spring-srv6-mpls-interworking/
who were working to document these
Hi Gyan,
Thanks for your quick and detailed response. Please check inline below.
From: Gyan Mishra
Sent: 17 April 2021 12:10
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) ; bess@ietf.org;
draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] WG
Hello Authors,
A few comments/observations on this draft:
1. The BCP categorization does not seem right for this document and perhaps
informational is better. Is this really something that has already seen
widespread deployment such that the IETF community can say that it is the best
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for your review and your comments/feedback. We’ve just posted an update
to the draft to address your comments.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07
We’ve also adding clarification text related to the transposition scheme in
this version in
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for your review and your comments. We’ll work on addressing them and
posting the draft update.
Thanks,
Ketan (on behalf of co-authors)
From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Sent: 01 April 2021 16:15
To: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Document
Hi Sasha,
Indeed your version is better and we’ll put that in on the next draft update.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: 10 March 2021 19:40
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org;
Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw
of this document
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: 10 March 2021 16:15
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; spr...@ietf.org;
Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw) ; Zafar Ali (zali)
; rtg-...@ietf.org;
Subject: RE: RTG-DIR review of draft-ietf
Hi Sasha,
Thanks a lot for your detailed review, your comments/feedback and for taking
time for discussions with the co-authors for their resolution.
We’ve just posted an update of the draft to address your comments based on our
discussions :
Hi Aijun,
Did you actually mean to say that the title should be "SRv6-based BGP Overlay
Services"? If so, I agree.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: BESS On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
Sent: 09 December 2020 08:43
To: 'Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)' ;
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject:
Hi Haibo,
This is not a change but a clarification to avoid exactly those kind of issues.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
Sent: 03 December 2020 15:39
To: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant) ; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
; draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG
Hi Haibo,
This clarification was explicitly added based on feedback that the authors
received.
This document does not change the definition of the Label Field of RFC4364 and
so it has always been 20 bits. There has been this text about 24-bit in other
parts of the draft since RFC7432 allows
Hi Matthew/Stephane,
I support the publication of this draft as standards track RFC. As a co-author,
I am not aware of any IPR other than the one that has already been disclosed on
the draft.
I would also like to report Cisco having implementations of this draft for
L3VPN (IPv4/IPv6),
Thanks Adrian for incorporating these changes as per our off-list discussion.
Thanks,
Ketan
-Original Message-
From: BESS On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 15 June 2020 18:54
To: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-15.txt
BESS,
This
Support.
From: BESS On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Sent: 06 January 2020 23:23
To: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call and Implementation Poll for
draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-00
This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-00.
Support adoption of this document.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: BESS On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Sent: 27 November 2019 18:07
To: bess@ietf.org
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for
draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision-00
Hello,
This email begins a
Also, not aware of any IPR related to the draft other than the one already
disclosed.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
Sent: 01 October 2019 22:57
To: 'Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)' ;
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] WG adoption and IPR
Hello,
I support the adoption of this document. It covers Internet, L3VPN and EVPN
services over SRv6 dataplane.
There are already implementations of this draft across multiple vendors as well
as deployments at multiple operators.
Thanks,
Ketan
From: BESS On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia
26 matches
Mail list logo
