Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on problem description

Hi Wen, Yes, we absolutely need to support more than one remote VTEP in the access side. As for how to deal with one or more than one remote VTEP, I don’t agree it’s quite the same as one CE vs more than one CE. For a single VNI in a BD, we should treat this as a single virtual ES in a BD,

Re: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-01.txt

Ali, Lots of thanks for a prompt and very informative response. You answers address all my comments, I expect to see them in the -03 revision of the draft.. All, I support progressing the draft with the changes mentioned in Ali’s email. Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell:

Re: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-01.txt

Support, we have an implementation on this From: BESS on behalf of EXT Jeff Tantsura Date: Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 00:59 To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" , "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-in...@ietf.org"

Re: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-01.txt

Support G/ From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 14:50 To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-in...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for