Hi Loa,
>>> Can you please explain what it means.
It implies any re-use of the values from allocated via
[I-D.draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping] when the same-parameter is referred to in
[I-D.draft-saum-evpn-lsp-ping-extension].
>>>. I would be appreciated if you notified the wg when you
Gyan,
I fully agree with your suggestions – with a couple of comments:
* Replication SID inherently requires usage of an external controller for
setup and maintenance of P2MP SR Policies
* BIER inherently requires new forwarding HW.
As a consequence, BGP multicast looks as the only
Other options for operators migrating to SR for Multicast P-Tree which is
still being developed by vendors is BIER which is stateless.
BGP Multicast Controller is a new solution which is being developed which
uses TEA RFC 9012 for signaling encoding alternative to MVPN procedures
defined in RFC
I agree with Saha and Jorge as I stated in my response that the directional
choice for use cases VPLS E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree signaling is to transition
off LDP to BGP based signaling processing using EVPN for any L2 VPN use
cases when migrating to Segment Routing both SR-MPLS and SRv6.
As I
Authors,
the IANA section of this draft says:
This document inherits all the IANA considerations discussed in
[I-D.draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping].
Can you please explain what it means.
WG Chairs
The MPLS working group have put in quite a bit of effort to keep the LSP
Ping parameter
I concur with Sasha.
We’ve been gone through a significant effort to unify the service signaling by
using EVPN. If we are missing anything in EVPN VPWS compared to T-LDP based
PWs, I would rather look at extending EVPN VPWS (if needed). If not an option,
it would good to discuss at least why
Any thoughts on below. ?
Regards,
Saumya.
From: Dikshit, Saumya [mailto:saumya.diks...@hpe.com]
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 5:30 PM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) ; Luc André
Burdet ; Sergey Fomin ; bess@ietf.org
Cc: draft-saum-bess-dampening-back...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [bess] FW:
Hello All,
New version of this draft is published, on the basis of comments received in
the Vienna meeting.
Kindly review it further for its readiness to be WG draft.
Regards,
Saumya.
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Monday,
Stewart, Andrew and all,
++ Bess WG.
I fully agree that using (targeted) LDP for setup of Martini PWs in an SR-based
environment is quite problematic for the operators.
One alternative is transition to setup of PWs using MP BGP based on the
EVPN-VPWS mechanisms (RFC
Hi Jeffrey,
I have read your draft carefully, as you mentioned in this draft, it is a less
optimal solution for PE to PE C-Multicast signaling.
In the draft I just published, we describe IPv6-only infrastructure and
dual-stack infrastructure issues and solutions for regular option B scenario
10 matches
Mail list logo
