t, that we will refresh soon, will reference to this
>>> draft and will allow the extended community to be advertised with A-D per
>>> EVI routes in the IP-VRF context.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Jorge
>>>
>>>
>>
e advertised with A-D per
>> EVI routes in the IP-VRF context.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Fomin, Sergey (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
>> *Date: *Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 2:07 AM
>> *To: *Neeraj Ma
dnesday, May 12, 2021 at 2:07 AM
> *To: *Neeraj Malhotra , Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
> US/Mountain View)
> *Cc: *slitkows.i...@gmail.com , BESS <
> bess@ietf.org>, bruno.decra...@orange.com
> *Subject: *RE: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
>
> Hi N
t;Considering the same example as in Section 3, ...), probably
>should point to 5.2?
>- Inconsistent spelling of "per ES/per-ES" (as in "Ethernet A-D per
>ES"). Probably should be whitespaced, not dashed (it is spelled this way in
>7432)
>
>
>
...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 8, 2021 1:29 AM
> *To:* Sergey Fomin
> *Cc:* DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN ; Rabadan, Jorge
> (Nokia - US/Mountain View) ;
> slitkows.i...@gmail.com; BESS
> *Subject:* Re: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
>
>
&g
assume this should be "MUST support at least
> one", since every other possible option is included in bullet#2?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sergey
>
> *From:* BESS *On Behalf Of *
> bruno.decra...@orange.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 6, 2021 5:46 AM
> *To:* Rabadan, Jorg
other possible option is included in bullet#2? --SergeyFrom: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.comSent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 5:46 AMTo: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>; Neeraj Malhotra <neeraj.i...@gmail.com>Cc:
ed in bullet#2?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sergey
>
> *From:* BESS *On Behalf Of *
> bruno.decra...@orange.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 6, 2021 5:46 AM
> *To:* Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) ;
> Neeraj Malhotra
> *Cc:* slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org
> *Subj
;, since
every other possible option is included in bullet#2?
--
Sergey
From: BESS On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 5:46 AM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) ; Neeraj
Malhotra
Cc: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] New short WGLC
; Neeraj Malhotra
Subject: RE: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
John,
Those bits are transmitted in the community/BGP in all cases (whether
transmitted as 0 or as significant bits) and probably needs to be locally
stored in case
E Drake [mailto:jdr...@juniper.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 5:09 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN
Cc: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org; Neeraj Malhotra
Subject: RE: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
Bruno,
The concern I have with bytes/sec is that given current
Drake
Cc: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org; Neeraj Malhotra
Subject: RE: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
John,
My comment is limited to specifying the default unit which provides consistency
by default. I had proposed
)
Regards,
--Bruno
From: John E Drake [mailto:jdr...@juniper.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 4:23 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN
Cc: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org; Neeraj Malhotra
Subject: RE: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
Bruno,
If you like we could say
...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:06 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org; Neeraj Malhotra
Subject: RE: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
John,
> It's *not* all egress PEs, it's only the mu
il.com<mailto:slitkows.i...@gmail.com>;
bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>; Neeraj Malhotra
mailto:neeraj.i...@gmail.com>>
Subject: RE: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi John,
Personally, I would prefer that t
,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:16 AM
To: John E Drake
Cc: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org; Neeraj Malhotra
Subject: RE: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi
--Bruno
From: John E Drake [mailto:jdr...@juniper.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 2:54 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN ; Neeraj Malhotra
Cc: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
Bruno,
I had suggested:
"The valu
known to it."
Yours Irrespectively,
John
Juniper Business Use Only
From: BESS On Behalf Of bruno.decra...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 4:04 AM
To: Neeraj Malhotra
Cc: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
[Exte
m: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) [mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:36 AM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN ; Neeraj Malhotra
Cc: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
Hi Bruno,
Thank
WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
Hi Neeraj,
Thanks for considering my comments.
Much better from my perspective. Thank you.
I have two comments on the changes:
- Regarding deployments
§4.1 allows two rather incompatible encodings/usages with no way to detect
which one is used: some PE
the registry is FCFS hence easy to request.
Thanks,
--Bruno
From: Neeraj Malhotra [mailto:neeraj.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 7:41 AM
To: DECRAENE Bruno TGI/OLN
Cc: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] New short WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
Hi Bruno
Hi Bruno,
Many thanks for the review comments. We have revised the draft addressing
your comments.
More inline.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:20 AM wrote:
> Hi Stéphane, authors,
>
>
>
> I have not followed the discussions on this document, but I’ll nonetheless
> raise one point
Hi Stéphane, authors,
I have not followed the discussions on this document, but I'll nonetheless
raise one point regarding the bandwidth community (better safe than sorry).
- why has [BGP-LINK-BW] been moved to informational reference while its reading
seem mandatory?
- A new EVPN Link
23 matches
Mail list logo
