Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto

Hi WG, We are currently missing the IPR poll reply from Ali regarding this draft. Ali, Could you please reply to the IPR poll ? Thanks, From: Luc André Burdet Sent: mercredi 7 avril 2021 18:45 To: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption and

[bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Hello, This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03 [1]. Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list. We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this document, to ensure

[bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-l3vpn-yang-05.txt

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 : Yang Data Model for BGP/MPLS L3 VPNs Authors : Dhanendra Jain Keyur Patel

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Thanks Kaliraj for clarification. Good point. I will add comments to section 3 and 4 related to this. If the control plane for IPv4 and IPv6 can remain separate for SAFI 128 or 129, the data plane would then know the payload as the data plane forwarding would follow the control plane AFI and

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Agreed. If the label allocated for 1/128 route is different from the 2/128 route, even if the routes share the same nexthop, then the label can potentially be used to distinguish whether we need v4 or v6 forwarding. That means the label allocation in control-plane may need to consider the AFI

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Thank you Kaliraj for your valuable feedback. We will take it back to the team. Kind Regards Gyan On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 11:06 PM Kaliraj Vairavakkalai wrote: > Agreed. If the label allocated for 1/128 route is different from the 2/128 > route, even if the routes share the same nexthop,

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

As co-author of this BCP for edge peering to carry IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 single peer, eliminating the IPv4 peer, I support WG adoption. I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Thank you Gyan On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 5:37 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < matthew.bo...@nokia.com>

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

this document provides a clear description of how and why to use the tools we have standardized to improve operational capabilities as part of migrating to IPv6. I support adopting this document. Yours, Joel On 4/13/2021 5:36 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote: Hello, This email begins

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Thanks, Donald. I agree that my discuss and comments are fixed by -09. —John On Apr 12, 2021, at 9:08 PM, Donald Eastlake mailto:d3e...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi John, I've posted -09 which should resolve your DISCUSS and COMMENTs. Thanks, Donald === Donald E.

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Hi Everyone, I support the adoption. Best Regards, Huaimo From: BESS On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 5:37 AM To: draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Hi, I've read the draft and found it very useful. It addresses a real problem and allows the operator to simplify the control plane. I support the adoption of draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh by the WG. Regards, Greg On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:37 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

support adoption On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 3:38 PM Ron Bonica wrote: > > > I support adoption. > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* BESS *On Behalf Of *Bocci, Matthew (Nokia > - GB) > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 13, 2021 5:37 AM > *To:*

Re: [bess] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with COMMENT)

Thanks for accommodating. Rob From: Donald Eastlake Sent: 13 April 2021 02:12 To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) Cc: Martin Vigoureux ; The IESG ; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-fr...@ietf.org; bess-cha...@ietf.org; BESS ; Matthew Bocci Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's No Objection on

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Support. Since the draft states "The goal of this document is to provide operators interoperability test result data from external BGP PE-CE edge peering between vendors Cisco, Juniper, Arista, Nokia and Huawei.", the authors should consider moving that data up and out of the appendix as well

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

As one of the co-authors of this BCP for edge peering to carry IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 single peer, eliminating the IPv4 peer, I support WG adoption. I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Thanks, Lili From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 at 5:37 AM

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Support, not aware of any IPR Mankamana From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 2:36:50 AM To: draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv...@ietf.org ; bess@ietf.org Subject: WG Adoption and IPR Poll for

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Donald, It being an AD’s prerogative to change his mind :-/ I’d like to discuss (if not necessarily DISCUSS, yet) this some more. Let’s remember what SHOULD means: 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

I supported the WG adoption for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03. However, I have some questions about the draft, hope the authors can address them: * Section 3 (Page 5) states "The goal of this document is to provide operators interoperability test result data from

[bess] Fwd: Last Call: (MVPN and MSDP SA Interoperation) to Proposed Standard

pim WG: FYI It looks like an earlier version of this document was discussed on the list. Please take a look at this version which is in Last Call. Thanks! Alvaro. On April 13, 2021 at 3:50:20 PM, The IESG (iesg-secret...@ietf.org) wrote: The IESG has received a request from the BGP

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Support. Jeffrey From: BESS On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 5:37 AM To: draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Hi Mike Good points. I will make the recommended adjustments. Thanks Gyan On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 1:55 PM Michael McBride < michael.mcbr...@futurewei.com> wrote: > Support. > > > > Since the draft states “The goal of this document is to provide operators > interoperability test result data

[bess] Last Call: (MVPN and MSDP SA Interoperation) to Proposed Standard

The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to consider the following document: - 'MVPN and MSDP SA Interoperation' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Gyan, Thank you very much for the explanation. If PE-CE is the only feature enabled by the draft, can you make it more clear in the introduction section? The following statement in the Abstraction doesn't quite clearly say about PE-CE using RFC8950. "This document describes the critical use

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Hi Linda Responses in-line Kind Regards Gyan On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 3:42 PM Linda Dunbar wrote: > I supported the WG adoption for > draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03. > > However, I have some questions about the draft, hope the authors can > address them: > > > >-

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Hi Linda Thank you for your comments and I will make the abstract clearer by adding PE-CE as the only relevance for this drafts interoperability testing. Thank you Gyan On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 4:16 PM Linda Dunbar wrote: > Gyan, > > > > Thank you very much for the explanation. > > If PE-CE

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

I support adoption. Ron Juniper Business Use Only From: BESS On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 5:37 AM To: draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for

Re: [bess] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-06

Thanks Ketan This looks fine to me. Please watch out for the shepherd’s write up and publication request in the next few days. Matthew From: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" Date: Monday, 12 April 2021 at 05:26 To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" , "draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" Cc:

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

I support adoption of this draft. I have a couple of comments: In section 6, “Changes resulting from a single IPv6 transport peer carrying IPv4 NLRI and IPv6 NLRI below:” It may be worth noting that this model may have some change to feature that use Pop-n-Forward MPLS-label forwarding.

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Support the adoption. Thanks, Sandy 原始邮件 发件人：Bocci,Matthew(Nokia-GB) 收件人：draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv...@ietf.org;bess@ietf.org; 日 期 ：2021年04月13日 17:37 主 题 ：[bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Thanks Gyan, Just a minor clarification: I am less concerned about control-plane, that may just work. My comment about platform-dependency was about whether the Pop-n-Forward forwarding will work for the MPLS label. E.g. if same label is used for both v4,v6 routes, then in forwarding plane,

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

Hi Kaliraj Thank you for your comments. Responses in-line Many thanks Gyan On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 7:33 PM Kaliraj Vairavakkalai wrote: > I support adoption of this draft. > > > > I have a couple of comments: > > > > In section 6, “Changes resulting from a single IPv6 transport peer

Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-05 shepherd's review

Hi, Stephane, Thanks you so much for your review! Please see zzh> below (I skipped all those that will be fixed as you pointed out). From: Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 5:56 AM To: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-la...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject:

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto

Support as a co-author. There is an IPR which is being disclosed. Cheers, Ali From: BESS on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" Date: Monday, March 29, 2021 at 12:13 AM To: "bess@ietf.org" Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto Hello, This email