Re: [bess] [Pals] [EXTERNAL] Re: [spring] Martini Pseudowires and SR

+1 Jorge at all. I don’t foresee significant additions to RFC 8214, most legacy PALS stuff doesn’t need to be resurrected.  However - If there’s appetite for IGP extensions for signaling PW (in spirit of SR)) and  (rather than using LDP)  there’s that – “Method and apparatus for pseudo-wire setup

Re: [bess] [Pals] [EXTERNAL] Re: [spring] Martini Pseudowires and SR

+ 1 to Sasha and Jorge The feature gaps to be addressed in BGP EVPN VPWS should be based on operators' feedback so we add only those that are relevant. Thanks, Ketan On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:59 PM Alexander Vainshtein < alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> wrote: > Jorge and all, > > Here is a

Re: [bess] A new draft for MVPN in IPv6-only network.

Hi Fanghong, My understanding of the main problem that is pointed out in your draft is that the "source-as" field cannot hold an IPv6 address that is required for non-segmented tunnels in case of IPv6 infrastructure. The draft I referred to also pointed out that problem, and gave a solution

Re: [bess] draft-saumvinayak-bess-all-df-bum

Hi Jorge, Luc, and Bess members Thank you for your comments. I have attended to all of them by paraphrasing the abstract and the problem statement. Please have a look at the new version: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-saumvinayak-bess-all-df-bum-03.txt Regards, Saumya. From: BESS

Re: [bess] [Pals] [EXTERNAL] Re: [spring] Martini Pseudowires and SR

Jorge and all, Here is a (admittedly incomplete) list of things that, AFAIK, today are not supported with EVPN VPWS: 1. All the non-Ethernet PW types (28 such types can be found in the IANA registry)