Re: [bess] Encoding a 20 bit label in a 24 bit field.

Hi Stephane, should note that "setting the MPLS Label field to zero" may be also interpreted as a valid label, IPv4 Explicit Null Label. Regards, Greg On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 6:47 AM wrote: > Hi, > > Does anyone disagree with the additional Jakob's statement proposal ? > " The lower order 4 bit

[bess] Multicast VPN fast upstream failover is ready for the WG LC

Dear BESS WG Chairs, et al., please kindly consider the WG LC call on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover .. Regards, Greg ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Proposed updates to address comments to draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

look good. Thanks for taking care of my comments. > > > > Cheers, > > Ali > > > > *From: *Greg Mirsky > *Date: *Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 7:50 AM > *To: *Cisco Employee , BESS , " > bess-cha...@ietf.org" > *Subject: *Proposed updates to address

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

Hi Stephane, et al., I'm not aware of any IPR related to this draft other than already disclosed. RE: implementation status In Q1 of 2019, ZTE will release a product that includes support of this draft. Regards, Greg On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:54 PM wrote: > Hello Working Group, > > > > This e

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

Hi Jeffrey, thank you for the review, detailed questions and helpful comments. Please find my notes, answers in-line tagged GIM>>. Regards, Greg On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:14 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > Hi, > > > > I have the following questions/comments: > > > >The procedure describ

Re: [bess] BFD WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan; BESS input solicited

Hi Anoop, thank you for your comments and the suggested text. To clarify the extent of the update, would the following accurately reflect the change in Introduction you're proposing: OLD TEXT: VXLAN is typically deployed in data centers interconnecting virtualized hosts of a tenant. VXLAN ad

Re: [bess] BFD WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan; BESS input solicited

are equally applicable to non-virtualized hosts attached to > VTEPs in switches." > > Thanks, > Anoop > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:17 PM Greg Mirsky > wrote: > > > > Hi Anoop, > > thank you for your comments and the suggested tex

Re: [bess] BFD WGLC for draft-ietf-bfd-vxlan; BESS input solicited

hosts and refers to VMs and VTEPs in hypervisors. However, the concepts are equally applicable to non-virtualized hosts attached to VTEPs in switches. Kind regards, Greg On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:28 AM Greg Mirsky wrote: > Hi Anoop, > thank you for the great text you've

Re: [bess] (Action required from Author)Re: Time to gather WG document status update

Hi Mankamana, apologies for the belated response. For draft-bess-mvpn-fast-failover - working on addressing comments received during WGLC. Will try to close by the end of February. Regards, Greg On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 3:49 AM Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) < manka...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi WG > >

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-01

Support the adoption of the draft. Regards, Greg On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 2:23 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote: > This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of > draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-01.txt > > > > Please review the draft and post any comments to

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

Hi Sandy, thank you for your kind consideration of the proposed updates. I've logged my answers under GIM3>> tag. Regards, Greg On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:44 PM wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Thank you for your good modification and clarification! > About two sections I still have some comments, I copy

Re: [bess] Poll to progress draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-controlplane without implementation

Dear WG Chairs, et al., I support going forward with the publication of draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane despite the absence of a readily available implementation. As Andy had noted, three other documents, that this document refers to, had reached the state of the assured technical stability t

Re: [bess] WG adoption call & IPR poll for draft-jain-bess-evpn-lsp-ping

Dear Stephane, at al., as the co-author, I'm not aware of any IPR related to the draft. yes/support the adoption by the BESS WG. Regards, Greg On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 12:37 AM wrote: > Hi, > > > > This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of > draft-jain-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-08[1] > > > > P

[bess] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-06.txt

fast upstream failover Authors : Thomas Morin Robert Kebler Greg Mirsky Filename: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-06.txt Pages : 19 Date: 2019-07-02 Abstract: This document

[bess] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-07.txt

on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF. Title : Multicast VPN fast upstream failover Authors : Thomas Morin Robert Kebler Greg Mirsky

[bess] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-08.txt

.txt To: Gregory Mirsky , Thomas Morin < thomas.mo...@orange-ftgroup.com>, Robert Kebler A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-08.txt has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover Re

Re: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

Hi Gyan, you're asking very good questions and your arguments are all correct. But I think that now there are several proposals that address what is considered the scalability issue of SRv6. Among these is the Unified SID for SRv6 .

Re: [bess] SRv6 versus SR-MPLS

s the basic IP archtiecture really abdly. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 10/5/2019 7:44 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Hi Gyan, > > you're asking very good questions and your arguments are all correct. > > But I think that now there are several proposals that address what is

Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

Hi Stephane, thank you for your quick response, comments and helpful suggestions. I'll work on the updated format, error handling, and reach out to Jeffrey. Regards, Greg On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > More inline, > > > > > > *Fr

Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

the text to be clear 😊 What do you think of the use of the normative language in the newly updated text? Best regards, Greg On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > More inline, > > > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky > *Sent:* mercredi 4 déc

Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

condition changes. Thank you for your help. Regards, Greg On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 1:16 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > In 3.1.4 you missed “as a result”. > > > > *From:* BESS *On Behalf Of * Greg Mirsky > *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2020 3:55 PM > *To:* slitkows.i...@gmai

Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

Hi Jeffrey, tons of thanks for your help and patience. Regards, Greg On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 12:04 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > Right 😊 > > > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky > *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2020 4:41 PM > *To:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > *Cc:* sli

Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

s, Greg On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 11:49 AM wrote: > I’m fine with the proposal > > > > > > *From:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > *Sent:* vendredi 31 janvier 2020 20:44 > *To:* Greg Mirsky ; slitkows.i...@gmail.com > *Cc:* BESS ; bess-cha...@ietf.org > *Subject:* RE: Sh

Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

“ 7.2. BFD Discriminator Extention Type » > > > > s/Extention/Extension > > > > > > Stephane > > > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky > *Sent:* samedi 1 février 2020 22:22 > *To:* slitkows.i...@gmail.com > *Cc:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; BESS ; &g

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04

Hi Matthew, et al., I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this draft. I support the adoption of this draft by BESS WG (as co-author). Regards, Greg On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:42 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > > This email begins a two-w

Re: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02

Hi Matthew, Stephane, et al., my apologies for the late response. I support the publication of this document. It is important for the EVPN OAM solutions work. Regards, Greg On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:55 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote: > This email starts a two-we

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping

Hi Stephane, Matthew, et al., as a co-author, I am not aware of any IPR related to this document. I support the publication of this draft as a co-author. It is based on the proven MPLS LSP Ping. The document describes the essential on-demand OAM for MPLS-based EPVN and PBB-EVPN networks supporting

Re: [bess] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-11

Hi Adrian, thank you for the review, detailed questions, and helpful suggestions. I'll work through and respond within several days. Regards, Greg On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 1:09 PM Adrian Farrel via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Reviewer: Adrian Farrel > Review result: Has Issues > > He

Re: [bess] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-11

Hi Daniel, thank you for the review, comments, and helpful suggestions. I'll work on answering questions and addressing comments and respond soon. Regards, Greg On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 5:36 AM Daniel Migault via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Reviewer: Daniel Migault > Review result: H

[bess] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-12.txt

on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF. Title : Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover Authors : Thomas Morin Robert Kebler Greg Mirsky

Re: [bess] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-11

ver > performing the fast failover might be useful information. > Similarly, it would be good to mention cases where an operator may choose > not to deploy such mechanism. > > Yours, > Daniel > > -- > *From:* Greg Mirsky > *Sent:* Thursd

Re: [bess] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-11

hink comes > from the conversion. > > Thanks for all your clarifications! > > Yours, > Daniel > > -- > *From:* Greg Mirsky > *Sent:* Thursday, November 12, 2020 3:14 PM > *To:* Daniel Migault > *Cc:* sec...@ietf.org ; BESS ; > last-c...@i

[bess] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13.txt

know if there are any remaining issues. Regards, Greg (on behalf of the authors) -- Forwarded message - From: Date: Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 12:19 PM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13.txt To: Greg Mirsky , Thomas Morin < thomas.mo...@ora

Re: [bess] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13

Hi Daniel, thank you for the review and your thoughtful comments that helped to improve the document. Regards, Greg On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 7:06 PM Daniel Migault via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Reviewer: Daniel Migault > Review result: Ready > > I reviewed this document as part of t

Re: [bess] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with COMMENT)

Hi Martin, thank you for your review and comments. Please find my answers, notes, and the proposed updates below under the GIM>> tag. Regards, Greg On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 12:08 PM Martin Duke via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for

Re: [bess] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with COMMENT)

Hi Roman, thank you for the review and the comment. Please find the proposed update below under the GIM>> tag. Regards, Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:38 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-mv

Re: [bess] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with COMMENT)

Hi Barry, thank you for the review, comments, and suggestions. Please find my answers below tagged by GIM>>. Regards, Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 9:20 PM Barry Leiba via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fas

Re: [bess] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with COMMENT)

Hi Murray, thank you for the review, comments, and helpful suggestions. Please find my answers and notes below tagged by GIM>>. Regards, Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 9:48 PM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position f

Re: [bess] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with COMMENT)

(C-S, C-G) traffic), and the PE MAY forward (C-S, C-G) traffic received by the PE to other PEs through a P-tunnel rooted at the PE. Would these updates address your concerns? Regards, Greg On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:09 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 a

Re: [bess] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with COMMENT)

Hi Murray, I feel that our discussion and changes helped to make the document clearer, improved it. And I like the manner you've re-worked text in Section 4.2. I'll use it. Regards, Greg On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:49 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Just to be clear, this is purely a

Re: [bess] Éric Vyncke's Abstain on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with COMMENT)

Hi Eric, apologies for the belated response. Please find my answers below in-lined tagged by GIM>>. Regards, Greg On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:05 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failove

Re: [bess] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

ccessfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover Revision: 14 Title: Multicast VPN Fast Upstream Failover Document date: 2020-12-21 Group: bess Pages: 24 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Jeff, thank you for your quick detailed response. Please find my follow-up notes in-line tagged by GIM2>>. Regards, Greg On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 5:42 AM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Greg, > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 04:25:21PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > GIM>> In S

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

o you think? Regards, Greg On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 3:28 PM Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Greg, > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 01:08:26PM -0800, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > > If the intent was to permit more than one type, the BFD Mode would be > > > followed by a length field - likel

Re: [bess] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-14: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ben, happy Holidays! The Reserved field, resulting from our discussion with Jeff Haas, is gone in the working version of the document: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Re: [bess] WG adoption for draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source

Dear Authors, thank you for the well-written and very interesting document. I read it and have some questions: - the Abstract states that Existing multicast techniques assume there are no redundant sources sending the same flow to the same IP multicast group, and, in case there were r

Re: [bess] WG adoption for draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source

Hi, I haven't seen any response to my questions from the authors. I'd greatly appreciate answers to help me understand this draft better and if I support the adoption by the BESS WG. Regards, Greg On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:19 PM Greg Mirsky wrote: > Dear Authors, > thank

Re: [bess] WG adoption for draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source

- US/Mountain View) < jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > > Thanks for reviewing it. > > Please see my comments in-line. > > > > Thanks. > > Jorge > > > > *From: *Greg Mirsky > *Date: *Wednesday, January 13, 2021 at 7:14 PM

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

oach, as defined in [RFC7606]. > > > I’ll clear my DISCUSS when the update is posted. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > On January 21, 2021 at 10:59:41 AM, Greg Mirsky (gregimir...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > Hi Alvaro, > after the discussion with our AD and Ch

Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Thank you for your comments, suggestions, and discussion. It all helped to make the document better. Best regards, Greg On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:40 PM Alvaro Retana wrote: > Thanks Greg! > > On January 21, 2021 at 3:10:29 PM, Greg Mirsky (gregimir...@gmail.com) > wrote: > &

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] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

g discrepancies between the data and control >planes. The document defines necessary Target FEC sub-TLVs for EVPN and >MVPN cases. > > > Regards, > > Greg Mirsky > > > Sr. Standardization Expert > 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&

Re: [bess] Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

Hi Saumya, thank you for your comments and questions. As I understand the draft, it does not update RFC 8029 and, as a result, everything that has been defined in RFC 8029 is fully applicable and can be used in EVPN and MVPN environments. If there's any part of the text that is not clear, please le

Re: [bess] Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

un...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Dikshit, Saumya > *Sent:* Monday, September 13, 2021 7:31 PM > *To:* Greg Mirsky > *Cc:* draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org; bess-cha...@ietf.org; Parag > Jain (paragj) ; bess@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [bess] Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-pi

Re: [bess] Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

aragj) 40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hi Saumya > > > > Thank you agreeing to progressing draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping in the > current state. > > > > Thank you Saumya and Greg for closing on this. > > > > I’ll be happy to participate in the new p

[bess] A question to the Authors of draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator

Dear Authors, thank you for bringing your work to the BESS WG. I've read the draft and couldn't find a reference to the IDR WG draft that, as it seems to me, addresses the same problem - draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions .

Re: [bess] A question to the Authors of draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator

to be service-driven. In our scenarios, intermediate > routers may change nexthops. To ensure service consistency, nexthop > information needs to be added to verify S-BFD the creation of redundant > S-BFD sessions. > > > > Regards, > > Haibo > > > > *From:

Re: [bess] A question to the Authors of draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator

S-BFD session be created for each SRv6 Policy? > In our opinion, we need a common S-BFD discriminator to create the S-BFD > session for detection the nexthop's reachability. > GIM>> Can you please clarify what is the "common S-BFD discriminator"? And what is the scope of the

Re: [bess] A question to the Authors of draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator

ents. Please see my answers below under the [Habio] > tag. > > > > Regards, > > Haibo > > *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 6, 2021 1:03 AM > *To:* Wanghaibo (Rainsword) > *Cc:* draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensi...@ietf.

Re: [bess] draft minutes from our session at IETF 96

Hi Thomas, et. al, my note is regarding the presentation and the discussion of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover. Minutes state "some discussion on BFD boostraping and suggestion we may want to have BFD WG aware". I recall that I've used stronger than "may want" encouragement to bring BFD-related

Re: [bess] draft minutes from our session at IETF 96

Thank you, Thomas. It is clear and I agree with the update. Regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Thomas Morin wrote: > Hi Greg, > > I've just uploaded updated minutes to address your comment. > > Best, > > -Thomas, as WG co-chair > > > 2016-07-26,

Re: [bess] Call for adoption: draft-mackie-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane

Yes, support the adoption. Regards, Greg On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Martin Vigoureux wrote: > Hello working group, > > This email starts a two-week call for adoption on > draft-mackie-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-04 [1] as a Working Group > Document. > > Please state on the list if you suppo

[bess] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-01.txt

: Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:18 AM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-01.txt To: Gregory Mirsky A new version of I-D, draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp

Re: [bess] Call for adoption: draft-drake-bess-datacenter-gateway

Yes, support for adoption. Regards, Greg On Sep 25, 2017 2:43 AM, "Martin Vigoureux" wrote: Hello working group, This email starts a two-week call for adoption on draft-drake-bess-datacenter-gateway-05 [1] as a BESS Working Group Document. Please state on the list if you support the adoption

[bess] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-03.txt

8:24 AM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-03.txt To: Gregory Mirsky , Thomas Morin < thomas.mo...@orange-ftgroup.com>, Robert Kebler A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirsky and

Re: [bess] Slot requests for BESS WG session - IETF 102 - Montreal

Hi Stephane, et. al, would appreciate the opportunity to present and discuss the update of Multicast VPN fast upstream failover at BESS WG meeting in Montreal. draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover presenter: Greg Mirsky time: 10 min Regards, Greg > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 6:13 AM, wr

[bess] A question about the draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator

Hi Haibo and the Authors, thank you for updating the draft. I've read the new version and have a question about the use case presented in the document. There are three PEs with two of them providing redundant access to a CE. It appears that a more general case would be if both CEs use redundant con

Re: [bess] A question about the draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator

would be clearer if the terms initiator and > responder (as per RFC7880) are used in the document. > > Regards, > Reshad. > > > On Monday, March 14, 2022, 12:44:55 PM EDT, Greg Mirsky < > gregimir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Haibo and the Authors, >

Re: [bess] A question about the draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator

a 4PE scenario, but in our > solution, a large number of scenarios are based on 3PE. > > In a 3PE scenario, deploying BFD wastes resources. A large number of > single-homed PEs may be connected to the dual-homed PEs. The dual-homed PEs > may not have enough resources to create BFD ses

Re: [bess] A question about the draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator

s the PE1 and PE2 as figure 1) > > Access PE needs to detect Service PE’s reachability. Access PE > creates SBFD session as an initiator, SPE as the reflector. This will save > Service PEs’ resources. > > > > Regards, > > Haibo > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator

Hi Matthew and Stephane, as a co-author, I support adoption of this draft by the BESS WG. I am not aware of any IPR, other than already disclosed, related to this draft. Regards, Greg On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 9:39 AM wrote: > Hello, > > > > This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for > d

Re: [bess] Mail regarding draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Hi Ali and Menachem, thank you for the discussion of the applicability of PW CW. I would like to bring to your attention the work at the MPLS WG on the use of the Post-stack First Nibble (PFN). I must apologize that the draft has la

[bess] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-03.txt

: Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 4:45 PM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-03.txt To: Greg Mirsky , Jie Dong , Kireeti Kompella , Loa Andersson , Matthew Bocci , Stewart Bryant < s...@stewartbryant.com> A new version of Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-03.t

[bess] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-04.txt

: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-04.txt To: Greg Mirsky , Jie Dong , Kireeti Kompella , Loa Andersson , Matthew Bocci , Stewart Bryant < s...@stewartbryant.com> A new version of Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-04.txt has been successfully submitted by Greg Mirs

[bess] Considering EVPN BFD as a candidate for the WG LC

Hi, I concur with Donald regarding the state of the draft-ietf-evpn-bfd document. The document is stable and ready for the WG LC. The authors are ready and committed to work and address all questions and comments, ensuring the expedient progress of the draft. Regards, Greg

Re: [bess] PFN questions in rfc4732bis

ks for getting back. > > My comments in line with [jorge]. > > > > Jorge > > > > *From: *Greg Mirsky > *Date: *Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 2:41 AM > *To: *draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432...@ietf.org < > draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-1stnib

Re: [bess] PFN questions in rfc4732bis

e.g., entropy label, PW FAT, label stack, or something else, must not be linked to the use of CW. I think that the sentence can be removed altogether without loss of any value. WDYT? > > > > > === > > > > In addition RFC 8214 needs to be addressed. This was also

Re: [bess] Meeting minutes IETF 119 uploaded

Excellent reflection of the discussion about the post-stack first nibble! Thank you! Regards, Greg On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 2:32 PM Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) wrote: > All, > > Meeting minutes uploaded. Thanks Jorge for taking the notes. > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materia

Re: [bess] Considering EVPN BFD as a candidate for the WG LC

unity Wiki <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/bess>). > > > > Authors, please can you also address Sasha’s comments/questions sent to > the BESS list on 31st March. > > > > Matthew > > > > *From: *Jeff Tantsura > *Date: *Friday, 22 March 2024 at 04:21 > *

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

Dear All, I share Menachem's concerns and welcome feedback from the authors. Regards, Greg On Sun, May 5, 2024 at 12:33 AM Menachem Dodge wrote: > Hello Authors, > > > > Just wondering why none of the discussion held at Brisbane meeting in > March and subsequently on the emailing list regarding

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

work use > entropy label for ECMP load balancing? > > > > > > Cheers, > > Ali > > > > *From: *Greg Mirsky > *Date: *Thursday, May 30, 2024 at 8:20 PM > *To: *Menachem Dodge , > draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432...@ietf.org , > bess@ietf.org > *Cc: *draft-ietf-

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

e it is just a > recommendation and the packet flow can work without it (i.e., without > having out-of-order delivery). > GIM>> And that seems to contradict draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble/>. > > > Cheers, > >

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

recommended, whether or not Entropy Label > is present, in order to cater for all types of equipment in the network. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Menachem > > > > *From: *Greg Mirsky > *Date: *Thursday, 6 June 2024 at 19:07 > *To: *Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > *C

[bess] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt

reader that if the local state of Control Word is disabled, that means that > the PE node uses the Entropy label for load-balancing. Personally, I would > refer to these states as Use Control Word/Use Entropy Label. > > > > Regarding why using “SHOULD” instead of “MUST” because i