Hi,
The draft had some good discussions prior to its adoption and we believe we
have resolved issues/comments raised at that time.
A few months ago Hejia did a RtgDir Early review, and a -01 revision was posted
to address the comments
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/sZmyDbMVznyH1vFx
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 : Explicit Tracking with Wild Card Routes in Multicast
VPN
Authors : Andrew Dolganow
Hi Jai,
I think draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-03 section-3.1 might help.
Thanks & Regards
Tim
From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jaikumar Somasundaram
Sent: 05 October 2018 06:07
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) ;
bess@ietf.org
Cc: Jiang He ; P Muthu
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 15:16, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>
> James,
Hi Andy,
> It's much harder to mandate use of EL than the CW for several reasons:
I didn't say it should be mandated, but recommended.
> - CW implementation is much more common than EL implementation
> - PWs and/or EVPN are rarely
James,
Agreed. We touched on that in section 7 of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw,
where we advised operators that enabling post-CW DPI for ECMP calculations
could cause misordering.
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:35 AM James Bensley wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 15:16, Andrew G. Malis
Andy, James and all,
One answer for Muthu’s question could be that the EVPN CP (including the EVPN
Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community) cannot provide support for negotiating
the CW usage in the case of MP2MP EVPN services.
I agree that this can hardly be called a good answer, but I suspect th
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 11:29, Alexander Vainshtein
wrote:
> I fully agree that reordering due to lack of the CW happens, and that usage
> of the CW is the right way to eliminate that.
Hi Sasha,
If I may rudely interject here. You have to be careful with your
wording. The PWMCW doesn't eliminate
Thanks Jorge.
I think that this optimization is not mentioned in the RFC 7432.
Section 8.5 of RFC 7432:
In the case of link or port failure, the affected PE withdraws its
Ethernet Segment route. This will re-trigger the service carving
procedures on all the PEs in the redundan
James,
It's much harder to mandate use of EL than the CW for several reasons:
- CW implementation is much more common than EL implementation
- PWs and/or EVPN are rarely the only traffic in an MPLS traffic tunnel,
rather, they will be multiplexed with other MPLS-based applications that
are using t
Thanks Mrinmoy.
Response in-lined.
From: Mrinmoy Ghosh (mrghosh)
Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 11:40 PM
To: Jaikumar Somasundaram ; Rabadan, Jorge
(Nokia - US/Mountain View) ; bess@ietf.org
Cc: Jiang He ; P Muthu Arul Mozhi
Subject: RE: [bess] EVPN MH: Backup node behavior in Primary Path Fa
Andy hi!
As always, very glad to hear from you.
I fully agree that reordering due to lack of the CW happens, and that usage of
the CW is the right way to eliminate that.
However, I think that the situation with usage of the CW MP2MP EVPN services is
somewhat different from the situation with P2
11 matches
Mail list logo
