Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please
Gyan, thank you for your review. I have not seen a response from the editors to
your review yet, and so I'm holding off for the moment on entering a ballot for
this document.
Authors, would you please respond to Gyan's review?
Thanks,
Lars
> On 2021-4-29, at 8:46, Gyan Mishra via Datatracker
Hello,
Co-existence of multiple dataplane technologies to carry BESS services is
useful for among others migration of one dataplane technology to another
(e.g. (SR)MPLS to SRv6).
Can co-existence be achieved without changing current specifications, or
would it require extensions / changes? For
Hi Lars
I met with the authors on Friday 5/14 and we went over my questions and
review of the draft in detail.
I will respond today with a detailed update on the status of my review
based on feedback from the authors from Friday meeting that the draft is in
a “Ready” state with minor updates &
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-06: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Adrian
I am wrapping up the Gen-ART review update.
The normative draft helped tremendously in understanding the problem and
solution. Please add to the beginning of the introduction in your next
update.
Hi Eric,
| Thank you for the work put into this document.
|
| I support John Scudder's first DISCUSS point.
Fair enough.
What did you think of my response to John
>> DISCUSS:
>>
>> 1. There’s surprisingly little in this document that seems to be SR-specific
>> (and what there is, has some
Hi Gyan,
> On May 17, 2021, at 1:50 PM, Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
> So if GW2 connection to external was down but GW1 still has its connection to
> external. GW2 would auto discover GW1 over iBGP and GW2 would advertise both
> GW1 and GW2 as reachable gateways. However GW2 has its external peer
On May 14, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi!
I share some of John's concerns -- quick comment on the first one.
...
> > 1. There’s surprisingly little in this document that seems to be
> > SR-specific (and what there is, has some problems, see below). Is there
> > some reason you
Hi Adrian,
Comments in line below.
> On May 14, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for the careful review.
>
>> DISCUSS:
>>
>> I have several points I’d like to discuss, listed below from most
>> general to most
Hi Adrian,
Comments in line.
> On May 16, 2021, at 7:25 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Trying to dismantle this…
>
> We are saying that a site is integral.
I don’t think I saw any place in the draft that states that assumption.
> You are is asking : what happens if a site
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please
Hi John
I agree with your comments that the scenario I mentioned is covered in
Section 3 and agree as well on the RFC 2119 keyword usage scrub.
In-line
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 3:55 PM John Scudder wrote:
> Hi Gyan,
>
> > On May 17, 2021, at 1:50 PM, Gyan Mishra wrote:
> >
> > So if GW2
Éric:
Hi!
MSDP (from 2003) is an IPv4-only protocol.
Also, take a look at rfc4611/BCP121 (MSDP Deployment Scenarios) which
mentions other IPv6 alternatives which makes any extension of MSDP
unnecessary.
Alvaro.
On May 17, 2021 at 2:10:13 AM, Éric Vyncke wrote:
> == DISCUSS ==
> While I am
Adrian
In the introduction it mentions the following backbone transport:
The various ASes that provide connectivity between the Ingress and Egress
Domains could each be constructed differently and use different
technologies such as IP, MPLS with global table routing native BGP to
the
Alvaro
Thank you for the added piece of information. I am clearing my DISCUSS tomorrow
(past midnight here).
Regards
-éric
-Original Message-
From: iesg on behalf of Alvaro Retana
Date: Monday, 17 May 2021 at 23:34
To: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker , Eric Vyncke
, The IESG
Cc:
Alvaro
Very good points brought up on the limitations on the tunnel encapsulation
attribute BGP prefix sid sub tlv. Can only be used with BGP LU AFI / SAFI.
Kind Regards
Gyan
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 4:12 PM Alvaro Retana
wrote:
> On May 14, 2021 at 1:04:53 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>
>
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-06: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-06: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph,
19 matches
Mail list logo
