Hi,
As co-author, I support the document for WG adoption. It is important to have
this adopted as soon as possible to make sure all EVPN SRv6 multi-homing
implementations follow the same procedures.
Not aware of any relevant IPR.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia)
Date: Thursday,
I’m not aware of any relevant IPR.
Thanks!
Jorge
From: slitkows.i...@gmail.com
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 12:45 AM
To: bess@ietf.org ,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobil...@ietf.org
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: WGLC, IPR, implementation poll for
Hi Peter,
Thank you very much for your review.
Please see my comments/resolutions in-line with [Jorge]. All your comments are
addressed in version 12 that we just published.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Peter Yee via Datatracker
Date: Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 3:41 AM
To: sec...@ietf.org
Cc:
Hi Murray,
Thank you very much for reviewing.
We just published version 12, which we believe addresses your comments.
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
Date: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 11:40 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
Hi Warren,
Thank you for reviewing.
We published version 12, which hopefully addresses most of the comments and
discuss.
About why two algorithms:
Initially only highest-preference was defined and implemented, however, there
was feedback from the Shepherd and others in the WG that defining
Hi Zaheduzzaman,
Thanks for your review.
Section 4.1 bullet D is now completed as follows in version 12:
“A similar procedure can be used for DF Algorithm Lowest-Preference too, that
is, suppose the algorithm for vES2 is Lowest-Preference, and PE1 (the DF) goes
on maintenance mode. The
Hi John,
Thanks very much for your review. Great comments as usual.
We addressed them in version 12 of the document. Please let us know if this new
version solves your DISCUSS and COMMENTs.
Also please see in-line with [Jorge].
Thanks!
Jorg
From: John Scudder via Datatracker
Date: Thursday,
Hi Éric,
Thanks very much for the review. Your comments are addressed in version 12.
Please see in line with [Jorge] for more details.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
Date: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 2:35 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref...@ietf.org
,
Hi Lars,
Thank you very much for your review.
All your comments have been addressed in version 12.
Let us know if you have further questions.
Please see in-line with [Jorge].
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:53 AM
To: The IESG
Cc:
Hi Roman,
Thanks for reviewing.
Your comments, along with John’s and Peter’s should be addressed in version 12
(recently posted).
Let us know if that is not the case, please.
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:20 PM
To: The IESG
Cc:
Thank you Warren.
Jorge
From: Warren Kumari
Date: Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1:55 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: The IESG , draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Stephane Litkowski
Subject: Re: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref
FYI
This version addresses the comments from Jeff Hass about the section on route
aggregation. Please pay close attention to it and provide any feedback you may
have.
Also the security section has been improved based on Jeff’s feedback as well.
Big thank you to Jeff, from all the authors, for
Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks for reviewing.
Please see my comments in-line with [Jorge]. All those are addressed in version
08.
Thx
Jorge
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 1:55 PM
To: 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)' , John E Drake
, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: 'BESS'
Subject
be imported in a MAC-VRF or a VPWS
type of service.
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 2:25 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess@ietf.org ,
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing.auth...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP
Hi Éric,
Thanks very much for your review.
Please see in-line with [Jorge].
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
Date: Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:21 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacfl...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Matthew Bocci
Hi Warren,
Thanks very much for reviewing.
Version 9 addresses Éric’s and Pascal’s comments.
This is a small extension of the procedures in RFC7623, but we acknowledge that
it is not easy to grasp the benefits unless you are familiar with RFC7623.
To that effect, in version 9, we added a
Hi Pascal,
Thank you very much for reviewing.
Your comments are addressed in version 09.
Some responses to your comments below:
Please indicate how the CE can know if the PW failure is not due to the PE
failure, in which case extending the Customer MAC flush solution in RFC7623
seems more
Hi John,
Thanks for the review. Your comments have been addressed in version 09.
Please see in-line.
Thx
Jorge
From: John Scudder via Datatracker
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:27 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacfl...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org
Hi Murray,
Thanks very much for reviewing.
We cleaned the glossary in version 9.
The document deals with an optimization of the customer MAC flush mechanisms in
RFC7623, but if your implementation cannot enable this optimization,
interoperability is still ok given that the procedures in
Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks very much for the review. Version 6 is published addressing your
comments.
Please see in-line.
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:34 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , Kiran Nagaraj (Nokia)
, Wen Lin , 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi
Thank you Éric.
I understand your point. My point is that this spec is really not introducing
any new side effect related to scale of MACs changing/moving.
We appreciate your time and help!
Thx
Jorge
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
Date: Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:08 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia
,
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:44 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess@ietf.org ,
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing.auth...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very
Hi John,
Thanks again!
Both things are now fixed in version 13.
Jorge
From: John Scudder via Datatracker
Date: Monday, October 9, 2023 at 2:08 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Stephane Litkowski
, slitkows.i...@gmail.com
at 8:20 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , Kiran Nagaraj (Nokia)
, Wen Lin , 'Ali Sajassi (sajassi)'
Cc: 'BESS'
Subject: RE: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-split-horizon-05
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL
Thanks for replying, Neeraj.
Looking forward to reading your next version.
Thx
Jorge
From: Neeraj Malhotra (nmalhotr)
Date: Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 4:01 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) ,
draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-centralized-anycast...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments
To: A. Sajassi , G. Badoni , J. Drake
, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , L.
Krattiger , P. Warade , S. Pasupula
, Ali Sajassi , Gaurav Badoni
, John Drake , Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
, Lukas Krattiger , Priyanka
Warade
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-06.txt
A new version
Hi Praveen,
There is no need to re-originate since the aliasing procedures provide load
balancing to the two PEs.
The only document that I know that talks about re-origination of MAC/IP routes
upon synchronization is draft-rbickhart-evpn-ip-mac-proxy-adv..
If you are talking about that, it
, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , Matthew
Bocci (Nokia) , bess@ietf.org ,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] [**EXTERNAL**] RE: CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and
Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*
Here's a proposed change:
OLD
While "local-bias" MUST be
Matthew,
Thank you for the review.
We just posted version 06 addressing your comments below.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia)
Date: Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 1:31 PM
To: bess@ietf.org ,
draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacfl...@ietf.org
Subject: Document shepherd review of
Hi Sasha,
The document explicitly mentions single-active and all-active. Maybe we can add
a sentence saying that those are the two multi-homing modes addressed by the
spec. I don’t think we should mention anything else?
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Wednesday, November 23,
Hi Menachem,
Sorry, yes, I meant Highest Pref =2 and Lowest Pref = 3.
Wen also pointed out my mistake.
Thank you both.
Jorge
From: Menachem Dodge
Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:00 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Draft draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-10
CAUTION
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 09:51
To: Alexander Vainshtein ; Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-06.txt
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See
not
caused any issues so I don’t see why A-D routes would create issues either, to
me it is the same thing.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Dikshit, Saumya
Date: Friday, March 24, 2023 at 6:50 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: New Version Notification
Hi Menachem,
The draft has been sent to the IESG for publication after the WG last call. It
needs to go through the normal review process.
The DF Alg registry requires that the draft becomes an RFC, as per RFC8584.
Highest preference might well take DF Alg 3 if there are no concerns in the WG.
, it is simple and works out in many networks.
Thank you!
Jorge
From: Gyan Mishra
Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 at 11:50 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: Menachem Dodge , bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] Section 8.5 of draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please
Hi Sasha,
There would be more cases where you can identify traffic coming from a given
LSP.
For instance RSVP-TE, or single-hop LSPs in general, etc – there is no need for
bidirectional MPLS-TP.
The text itself implicitly refers to the cases where PWs can be aggregated into
a common LSP, so
and MPLS-TP LSPs, I don’t agree. That does not reflect what implementations are
doing.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 7:47 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess@ietf.org , last-c...@ietf.org ,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org
Subject
a problem here.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 5:23 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess@ietf.org , last-c...@ietf.org ,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Last Call: (EVPN
Virtual Ethernet Segment) to Proposed Standard
Hi Yubao,
Since you are referring to the A-D per EVI route signaling the F bit, I assume
you talk about EVPN VPWS, however you mention MAC-VRF, so that’s confusing.
The case you are describing – propagation of the L2-attributes extended
community when readvertising the A-D per EVI or IMET route
familiar works.
Maybe this is partly implicit in the text and can be clarified.
Hope it helps.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Monday, April 17, 2023 at 3:53 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess@ietf.org , last-c...@ietf.org ,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org
Hi Menachem,
I’m not aware of any other document using the DP capability, other than this
document for preference based DF Alg.
If you see the procedures for non-revertive, you may infer that it is easy to
implement with a preference number but it is not easy to implement with other
DF Algs
Hi Himanshu,
We just published version 5 addressing your comment and fixing some minor typos.
Thank you very much for your review and nice words.
Jorge
From: Himanshu Shah via Datatracker
Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 at 1:58 PM
To: rtg-...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org ,
9136.
Regards,
Sasha
From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 4:17 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein ;
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing.auth...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org; Dmitry Valdman ; Nitsan Dolev
; Michael Gorokhovsky ;
Ron Sdayoor ; Egon Haparnass ; Shell
Nakash ; Marina
Hi Sasha,
I replied to your other email. Section 1.2 assumes the IP Prefix route is
advertised with a non-reserved ESI and the A-D per ES/EVI routes are used for
resolution on the remote PE. So there is indeed mass withdraw, that is the
improvement over the RFC9136 IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF
Hi Menachem,
The way I see it, draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis will obsolete RFC7432, but it does
not update or change RFC8584, so I don’t think draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis needs
to repeat the aspects of RFC8584.
In particular, the AC-DF, as the other capabilities defined in other documents,
is a
, April 28, 2023 at 4:09 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432...@ietf.org ,
bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re:Discussion about F (Flow label) bit of draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis
section 7.11
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening
Hi Sasha,
I’m doing my best to answer your questions in-line below. Some others may want
to chime in too.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:04 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , Wim Henderickx (Nokia)
, 'John E Drake' , Wen Lin
, Ali Sajassi (sajassi
only being used for known unicast traffic.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: wang.yub...@zte.com.cn
Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:28 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432...@ietf.org ,
bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re:Discussion about F (Flow label) bit of draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis
Sasha,
We just published version 07 of the EVPN IP Aliasing draft, and tried to
address your comments in this thread. Let us know if you have further comments.
Thank you!
Jorge
From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 5:09 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein ,
draft-sajassi-bess
Hi Vijay,
Thanks very much for reviewing.
We just published version 11 which addresses all your comments.
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker
Date: Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 12:13 PM
To: gen-...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org , draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df@ietf.org
,
Hi everyone,
As part of the same review, I wanted to take advantage of Jeff’s email to throw
a couple of comments if I may:
* While initially
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb defined a
new extended community because the IDR link-bw extended community
Hi Sasha,
In-line too.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 9:27 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess@ietf.org ,
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing.auth...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
CAUTION
xander Vainshtein
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2023 12:57:00 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess@ietf.org ;
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing.auth...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft
Jorge,
Lots of thanks for the new revision, it addresses the majority of my commen
Hi Joel,
Thanks very much for reviewing.
Based on your comment, we realized that RFC7623 indeed uses B-MAC and C-MAC,
and not BMAC and CMAC.
In the revision 08 (just published), we replaced those terms throughout the
document to avoid confusion. Also clarified the paragraph you referred to.
Hi John, all,
We published version 08. This version removes the use of D-PATH from SAFI 1
routes completely (this is still an ongoing discussion with the IDR chairs) and
addresses your comments below.
Please see in-line with [jorge].
Thanks for the email!
Jorge
From: John Scudder
Date:
Hi Sasha,
About your suggestion on 7432bis, it’s kind of implicit, but I see no harm in
adding a sentence.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 1:26 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess@ietf.org ,
draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-op...@ietf.org
As a co-author I support the adoption of this document as WG document.
Not aware of any related IPR.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of slitkows.i...@gmail.com
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:02 AM
To: bess@ietf.org
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG adoption for
I support this document for WG adoption.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of Matthew Bocci (Nokia)
Date: Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 3:36 AM
To: bess@ietf.org
Cc: draft-sajassi-bess-secure-e...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR poll for
Hi Kishore,
Yes, on PE-C, CE1’s loopback is resolved via an EVPN IP Prefix route.
The MH eBGP session between CE1 and PE-C uses IPv4/IPv6 unicast families (SAFI
1).
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Tanuku, N V M Kishore
Date: Monday, May 22, 2023 at 9:31 AM
To: bess@ietf.org
Cc: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia
Hi,
I fully support merging those drafts.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of Gyan Mishra
Date: Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 5:32 PM
To: BESS , bess-cha...@ietf.org , Dongjie
(Jimmy)
Subject: [bess] IETF 117 BESS - IPv6 Only PE Design & IPv4 Only PE Design ALL
SAFI Supported
CAUTION: This
I think the document is ready for publication, I support the document as
co-author.
As Matthew says, there are many implementations out there, and many deployments
too.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 12:58 PM
To: Matthew
Jeffrey, thanks for your answers. At least you and I are in synch now.
Thx
Jorge
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
Date: Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 2:25 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein , Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess@ietf.org , Nitsan Dolev ,
draft-zzhang-bess-vpn-option-bc.auth...@ietf.org
Hi,
Nokia has an implementation of draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-args in SROS.
As Ketan says, it is important to make this work WG adopted as soon as possible
so that new implementors become aware of the changes compared to RFC9252.
Thanks,
Jorge
From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia)
Date: Tuesday, August
Hi everyone,
I mostly agree with Sasha’s points.
For completeness I’d like to add that, as I said on the mike, I believe a
solution based on the TEA would be better (than based on multi-label NLRI).
Reasons are:
* RFC8277 was only defined for SAFIs 1 and 128, never for EVPN
* EVPN
in RFC 9136 the
same route undergoes inter-AS Option BC handling based on the TEA, and, if yes,
how these two usages can be clearly differentiated?
Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha
From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 6:32 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein ;
draft-zzhan
Hi Loa,
Thank you very much for your review.
We went through the document and tried to expand as many abbreviations as
possible. Also we improved the terminology section trying to help non-multicast
experts.
Please check out rev 06, which addresses all your comments.
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Loa
Hi Sasha,
Please see in-line.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 9:00 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess@ietf.org , Wim Henderickx (Nokia)
, 'John E Drake' , Wen Lin
, Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Subject: RE: Questions about Section 4.4.3 of RFC 9136
CAUTION
Hi Sasha,
No disagreement - if you identified a gap in that YANG model, it might be good
to address it if people need it.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:50 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess@ietf.org , Wim Henderickx (Nokia)
, 'John E Drake
with their trade-offs, not mandating any particular one. Both things you point
out are described in 3.1.3 section. If you don’t think so, please let us know.
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:31 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , wang.yub...@zte.com.cn
Cc
Hi Yubao,
I would recommend reading RFC8584 section 4.1 for VLAN-aware bundle and AC-DF.
Also it is important to understand the difference between ethernet tag id and
ethernet tag. The latter is used for DF election, and not the former.
“Ethernet Tag:
Used to represent a BD that is configured
think we
should clarify that in draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b we’ll be
happy to do it.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: wang.yub...@zte.com.cn
Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:54 AM
To: draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-op...@ietf.org
, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
, rfc7432...@ietf.org
Cc: bess
co.com , ssa...@cisco.com ,
stho...@cisco.com , Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
, Alvaro Retana , Andrew
Alston - IETF , Matthew Bocci (Nokia)
, slitkows.i...@gmail.com ,
Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang , vrkic.de...@gmail.com
, John Drake
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9135 (7684)
C
...@gmail.com , saja...@cisco.com
, ssa...@cisco.com , John Drake
, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Subject: Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8214 (7562)
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information
. Same as you would do with the VPN-IP
families in an IP-VRF.. not sure why you would do anything different
My two cents.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Monday, December 11, 2023 at 4:43 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , Wim Henderickx (Nokia)
, w...@juniper.net , John E Drake
-vrf in a few cases where the there is no
ip-vrf and a route type 5 is generated, but in the ip-vrf-to-ip-vrf cases you
would use the RD of the IP-VRF.
My 2 cents.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Alexander Vainshtein
Date: Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 2:39 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , Wim Henderickx
Hi Saumya,
Thank you for patience and feedback. I think we can address some of your
comments in the next version.
Please see in-line with [Jorge].
From: Dikshit, Saumya
Date: Monday, January 15, 2024 at 7:24 AM
To: BESS , draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Hi Saumya,
Please see in-line.
From: Dikshit, Saumya
Date: Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 10:53 PM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , BESS ,
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Queries to authors of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn
As co-author, I support the WG adoption of this document.
Not aware of any relevant IPR.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
Date: Monday, November 13, 2023 at 3:51 AM
To: 'BESS'
Cc: 'bess-cha...@ietf.org' ,
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org
Subject: WG Adoption and IPR
Dear authors,
These are the comments that I couldn’t ask/say during the BESS session:
# Major comment: I believe section 5.1 is not correct:
“... GW MAC/IP MUST be advertised with a higher sequence number. ...”
And as per draft 7432bis:
“MAC Mobility extended community SHALL NOT be attached
Hi Saumya,
Please see in-line with [jorge].
From: Dikshit, Saumya
Date: Monday, February 26, 2024 at 9:31 PM
To: BESS , Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: few queries regarding rfc9014 :
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9014
CAUTION: This is an external
Hi Saumya,
Not really, RFC9014 was published long ago, and there is no issue with the text
as far as I can tell. So this is not an errata but my own considerations.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Dikshit, Saumya
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 1:00 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , BESS
Cc: bess-cha
Hi Saumya,
From my perspective these are network design choices, I don’t think there is
anything related to interoperability that is missing and that is not in RFC9014.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Dikshit, Saumya
Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 4:08 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , BESS
Cc: bess
Hi Jeff,
Yes.
Nokia has implementations on SROS and SRLinux.
I believe there are others but can’t say for sure.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of Jeff Tantsura
Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 7:00 AM
To: BESS
Subject: Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-01.txt
To: Dikshit, Saumya , Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
, Allu, Ramaprasad ,
bess@ietf.org , draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Queries to authors of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-00.html
CAUTION: This is an external email
Hi Ramaprasad,
About this:
“If MPLS label field is not considered for BGP route key, then BGP RIB will
have only one route entry at any given point of time.
That is, IP A-D per EVI route overwrites Ethernet AD per EVI and vice-versa if
same RD is used for IP-VRF and MAC-VRF.”
The Ethernet
he RT2 RD and the IP
A-D per EVI route RD will not match, it is something that we can certainly do.
Just let us know.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Dikshit, Saumya
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 3:42 AM
To: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , Allu, Ramaprasad
, bess@ietf.org ,
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip
As co-author, I support this document for WG adoption.
Not aware of any related undisclosed IPR.
This document specifies the use of D-PATH for EVPN routes used in ELAN and
ELINE services, it provides inter-domain visibility and prevents control plane
loops in an automatic way. There are
Hi Greg,
Thanks 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-mpls-1stnib...@ietf.org , MPLS
Working Group , bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: PFN questions in
It’s a good point Luc.
I agree – Section 18 is the right place to make updates if we really want to
enforce CW in a much more strict way.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Luc André Burdet
Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 5:35 PM
To: Menachem Dodge , Greg Mirsky
Cc: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) ,
draft-ietf-bess
89 matches
Mail list logo
