Hi Francesca,
Thank you very much for your review.
Please see in-line how we are resolving your comments in the next revision (07,
to be published asap).
Thanks.
Jorge
-Original Message-
From: BESS on behalf of Francesca Palombini
Date: Friday, December 14, 2018 at 5:13 PM
To:
Linda,
Thank you for reviewing.
I think the document has to be Standards Track. Especially for the PEs that
support both VPLS _and_ EVPN, the procedures described must be consistent in
all the PEs that participate in the seamless integration, otherwise there could
be loops or blackholes.
Mankamana, Matthew, Stephane,
Update about two drafts:
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags
* This is a very simple draft defining an extended community to propagate
the IPv6 ND information along with MAC/IP routes in EVPN.
* It is used (and referred) in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd,
Hi,
I think you should check out
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-09
This draft updates RFC7432 in certain aspects of the DF Election, and it is
already at the RFC editor.
Check out the use of Ethernet Tag in the document.
o Ethernet Tag - used to
Date: Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5:10 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Cc: Jaikumar Somasundaram , "bess@ietf.org"
, P Muthu Arul Mozhi
Subject: Re: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface - reg
Thanks, Jorge. It is clear that th
Support as co-author.
Not aware of any relevant IPR.
Thank you.
Jorge
From: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com"
Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 9:43 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" ,
"draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobil...@ietf.org"
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: WG adoption and IPR poll
The implementations I know use the same DF Alg for DF election _and_ backup DF
Election. And I don’t see why you would use something different?
In other words, if you use e.g., Pref based DF Alg, use it for DF and BDF
elections. Only that the BDF election excludes the DF from the candidate list.
Mozhi Perumal
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 10:41
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] BDF Election in EVPN VPWS Single-Active Multihoming
Hi Jorge,
I didn't mean using different algorithms for electing the DF and BFD. I am just
asking which algorithm
It “sounds” to me that Jaikumar’s question might be related to comparing
MPLS-based vs MAC-based forwarding models.
RFC8388 may help, sections 6-8.
My 2 cents.
Thx
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of Jide Akintola
Date: Monday, February 18, 2019 at 1:23 PM
To: "bess@ietf.org" , Jaikumar
As co-author, I support this document for adoption.
Not aware of any relevant IPR.
Thank you.
Jorge
From: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com"
Date: Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:53 PM
To: "draft-rabadan-sajassi-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interwork...@ietf.org"
, "bess@ietf.org"
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Subject: Re: [bess] A question on using EVPN label and Alias label in load
balancing
Believe Jaikumar's question is, whether it is allowed per RFC 7432 to send
known unicast traffic to a non-DF PE (for load balancing in all active
m
: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)"
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 12:41 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Cc: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" ,
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org"
, "bess@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [bess] Abou
: Benjamin Kaduk
Date: Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 9:06 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Cc: "Satya Mohanty (satyamoh)" , The IESG ,
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framew...@ietf.org"
, Stephane Litkowski
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" ,
, January 19, 2019 at 2:13 AM
To: "Satya Mohanty (satyamoh)"
Cc: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" , The
IESG , "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framew...@ietf.org"
, Stephane Litkowski
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" ,
"bess@ietf.org"
Subject
Hi Bob,
Please see in-line with [JORGE].
Hope it helps.
Thx
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of "wang.yub...@zte.com.cn"
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 12:04 PM
To: "bess@ietf.org" , "saja...@cisco.com" ,
"ais...@juniper.net" , "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia -
BE/Antwerp)"
Subject: [ALU] [bess]
Hi,
I think the definition of Ethernet Tag in the framework draft should be clear
enough.
There are implementations using configured IDs.
Jorge
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 2:54 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Cc: Jaikumar So
: "wang.yub...@zte.com.cn"
Date: Friday, April 12, 2019 at 3:22 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Cc: "bess@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [bess] [ALU] Some questions about PBB EVPN (RFC7623)
Hi Jorge,
Thank you very much for your help.
I am still n
te: Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:19 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" , "saja...@cisco.com" ,
"jdr...@juniper.net"
Subject: [BESS] Discussions about DF-election FSM.
Hi Jorge,
I read the draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-e
service, but the label that you use has
different owner.
I think RFC7432 is pretty clear about this. Not sure where the confusion is.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: gangadhara reddy chavva
Date: Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:05 PM
To: "bess@ietf.org" , "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain
View)
As an author, I believe this draft is ready to progress and be published.
There are multiple implementations and it’s an important aspect of EVPN
networks.
Thank you.
Jorge
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:07 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Cc:
As a co-author, I support this document for publication as an RFC.
Not aware of any relevant IPR.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 3:44 PM
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org"
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: WG
Support. Very much needed document.
Thanks,
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com"
Date: Monday, June 17, 2019 at 1:53 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy
Hello
Hi,
Remember that the same ES can be shared by Eline, ELAN, Etree and other EVPN
services, in which you still need the ESI label. So I would follow RFC7432 for
this.
On reception a PE should ignore the ESI label value if only EVPN VPWS services
are running.
As a side note, this document is
capability along with the
Preference based Alg in the DF preference draft.
* Or the handshake Alg in the fast df recovery draft
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "wang.yub...@zte.com.cn"
Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 5:02 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Cc: "Rabadan, Jorge
the reference.
Thank you!
Jorge
-Original Message-
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)"
Date: Friday, April 26, 2019 at 3:11 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" ,
"bess@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-f
Muthu,
The source NVE identifies the MAC-VRF/BD out of the RT/eth-tag. The assumption
is that the BD is only attached to one IP-VRF, hence you know what ARP table to
look up.
My two cents.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 4:39 AM
To:
to, there is only a MAC in the route that
the source NVE receives. So you cannot guarantee the source NVE will receive an
RT for the IP-VRF.
Thx
Jorge
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
Date: Friday, May 3, 2019 at 7:39 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Cc: "bess@ietf.org"
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
Date: Friday, May 3, 2019 at 11:47 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Cc: "bess@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [bess] Question on ARP probe in
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding
Please see inline..
On Fri, May 3, 2019
87/RFC7432, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
Let us know if you want us to republish with just that change.
Thanks.
Jorge
-Original Message-
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
Date: Monday, July 8, 2019 at 6:05 PM
To: "Rabadan, J
Hi Matthew,
Apologies for my dyslexia.
Just posted version 08 fixing the reference.
Thanks.
Jorge
-Original Message-
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
Date: Monday, July 8, 2019 at 6:29 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" ,
"draft
Hi Matthew,
We submitted version 07, which addresses your comments.
Thank you very much for reviewing.
Jorge
-Original Message-
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 at 2:20 PM
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp...@ietf.org"
Cc: "bess@ietf.org"
Subject:
All,
We did a minor update to this draft - we added a new flag (I) that is
indicating that the IP->MAC binding in a MAC/IP route is immutable, i.e., the
advertised IP can only be bound to the advertised MAC when programming it in
the ARP/ND cache.
Please let us know if you have any comments.
construction in vxlan scenario is not follow the same rule as
in mpls scenario(rfc7432) ?
Thanks
Yang Huang
发件人: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) [mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com]
发送时间: 2019年7月1日 14:51
收件人: huangyang (E) ; bess@ietf.org
主题: Re: [bess] [Mail regarding rfc7432]Could you cl
Hi,
I think you should construct the ingress replication tunnels using the next hop
of the IMET routes, otherwise you will have issues with inter-as model B
scenarios. The received originating IP and next-hop at the ingress PE do not
need to be the same.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of
Note that RFC8584’s AC-DF capability is also supported by EVPN VPWS. Hence, in
case of failure on the primary, the very same A-D per EVI route withdraw that
causes the remote PE to switch to the backup PE, should make the BDF to take
over as DF right away.
My two cents.
Thx
Jorge
From: BESS
Hi Jeff,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
The idea was that a vendor using this route type could use a value unique to
them. In case of not having an OUI, the registration of a new one with the IEEE
should be pretty straight forward. We’ll add the informal reference that you
mention,
Hi Stephane,
It is not a security key. As you say it could be used to encode multiple
sub-types with different vendor specific info, but we wanted to define it
flexible/open enough for the individual vendor to decide. We can add a sentence
stating that..
Thank you!
Jorge
From: BESS on
As a co-author, I support this document for WG adoption.
I’m not aware of any IPR relevant to this document.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of Stephane Litkowski
Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 11:15 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Subject: [bess] WG adoption call and IPR poll for
Hi Ali,
Thanks for your comments.
Please see some more comments and questions in-line with [JORGE].
Thx
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)"
Date: Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 9:02 PM
To: Siddhesh Dindorkar
Cc: Stephane Litkowski , "bess@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [bess] WG
As a co-author I support this document for WG adoption. It has multiple
implementations and it was tested between different vendors at the last EANTC
interoperability event.
I am not aware of any IPR relevant to this document.
Thank you.
Jorge
From: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com"
Date:
As a co-author, I support this draft for WG adoption.
Not aware of any relevant IPR.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of Stephane Litkowski
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 5:12 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" , "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IP poll for
We just updated this draft with the security considerations.
As discussed by the WG chairs this week, it's ready for WG adoption call.
Comments are welcome.
Thanks.
Jorge
A new version of I-D, draft-snr-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-06.txt
has been successfully submitted by Jorge
I support this document for WG adoption.
Not aware of any non-disclosed relevant IPR.
Thx
Jorge
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 1:00 PM
To: "draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org"
, "bess@ietf.org"
Subject: WG adoption and IPR poll for
Hi Stephane,
Please see in-line.
If you think we should add some text making my comments below more explicit,
I’d be happy to do it.
Thank you.
Jorge
From: "slitkows.i...@gmail.com"
Date: Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 4:57 AM
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref...@ietf.org"
, "bess@ietf.org"
Hi Ali,
It makes sense.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)"
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:37 AM
To: Stephane Litkowski , "bess@ietf.org"
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption and IP poll for
draft-snr-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush
We
Hi,
I don't understand why this erratum was filed.
"Broadcast Domain" is the correct term used in RFC7432 and all the EVPN
documents.
It should be rejected.
Thanks.
Jorge
-Original Message-
From: RFC Errata System
Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 4:17 PM
To: "Rabada
FYI
This is just a refresh of the draft, before it expires.
Only some typos and references were fixed.
Thx
Jorge
-Original Message-
From: BESS on behalf of "internet-dra...@ietf.org"
Reply-To: "bess@ietf.org"
Date: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at 8:00 PM
To: "i-d-annou...@ietf.org"
I support this document and it’s ready to progress. Not aware of any relevant
IPR.
This document has several implementations and it is an important for EVPN
networks.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "slitkows.i...@gmail.com"
Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 7:46 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" ,
Support.
Thx
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 1:37 PM
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for
draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision-00
Hello,
This email begins a two-weeks
FYI
Based on some received feedback, we published a new version of this draft
clarifying the use of the D-PATH attribute when more than 255 domains are
needed.
Any comments are welcome.
Otherwise the document is ready for WG LC.
Thanks.
Jorge
-Original Message-
From: BESS on behalf
I support the document. It should progress.
Thanks.
Jorge
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 10:48:42 +
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperat...@ietf.org"
Hi Mankamana and authors,
I went through version 4 of this draft. Looks much better, thanks.
I still think it can be improved before it progresses further:
* The abstract and introduction should already say that the procedures are
valid for MLD proxy, in addition to IGMP proxy. The last
, and in particular, the Service Provider that
co-authors the draft thought that way.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)"
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 3:43 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" ,
Stephane Litkowski , "stephane.litkow...@orange.com&qu
:-)
Patrice,
Our draft is Informational because it does not require to change the EVPN
control plane, so we thought it was the right track.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)"
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:17 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain Vie
Hi Ali,
Thank you for your feedback.
The draft is going through a WG adoption call, and although during the first
part of the adoption call there was not much feedback, the draft has now fair
good support from several Service Providers and vendors. We also got the
feedback from a Service
you have proof of multivendor support.
http://www.eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/News/2019/EANTC-MPLSSDNNFV2019-WhitePaper-v1.2.pdf
(page 11)
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)"
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:49 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain Vie
Hi Patrice,
I understand that you may not support the draft.
However, it would help if you clarify the reason why:
* Is it because you don’t think loops should be protected in the way the
draft describes? If so please elaborate.
* Or is it that you do support the idea in the draft, but
.
But the text does not say what to do in case R only supports version x but the
SMET includes version y. Sorry if we missed it.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)"
Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 2:16 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" ,
"step
Support for publication, as co-author. This is a very important and needed
technology in EVPN networks.
Not aware of any undisclosed IPRs.
Nokia has an implementation of this draft.
Thank you.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com"
Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 3:26
I would also refer to RFC8365, specifically the local-bias explanation for
multi-homing Split-Horizon, and also the NVE residing in the hypervisor.
That’s usually the reference here.
My two cents..
Thx
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of "UTTARO, JAMES"
Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 4:57 PM
To:
Support as co-author.
Not aware of any IPR related to this draft.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "slitkows.i...@gmail.com"
Date: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 5:49 AM
To: 'BESS' ,
"draft-wsv-bess-extended-evpn-optimized...@ietf.org"
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: WG adoption and IP poll for
Support as co-author.
Not aware of any relevant IPR.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "slitkows.i...@gmail.com"
Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 9:56 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" ,
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb.auth...@ietf.org"
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: WGLC , IPR and implementation poll for
Support as co-author.
Not aware of any relevant IPR.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 3:48 PM
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Cc: "draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh...@ietf.org"
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: WG Adoption and IPR Poll for
Hi Gyan,
In-line, please.
Thanks,
Jorge
From: Gyan Mishra
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 8:50 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Cc: BESS , "UTTARO, JAMES"
Subject: Re: [bess] vxlan evpn and L3 vpn interworking standard
Hi Jorge
Thank you for the c
Hi Gyan,
“Is it possible in either gateway or composite PE interworking function that we
can only export out the type 5 routes and block the type 4 host routes from
being exported into IPVPN. In most all cases there would be a L3 VNI tenant
VRF prefix which would be represented by the Type 5
Hi Gyan,
The evpn ipvpn interworking draft was adopted as:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-02
Thx
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of Gyan Mishra
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 6:38 AM
To: BESS
Subject: [bess] vxlan evpn and L3 vpn interworking standard
Hi,
Just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page in regards to the RT-8 key.
Keeping the same NLRI length as in previous versions of the draft, addresses
the concerns about bgp speakers bringing down the session. I agree with that.
However I don’t think that field should ever be part
Hi Gyan,
If I may, note that:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-10#section-4.6
Also provides vxlan segmentation, and while the description is based on DCI,
you can perfectly use it for inter-pod connectivity.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of Gyan Mishra
.
Note that this draft has multiple implementations, and the only reason why is
not an RFC yet is due to a normative reference that must be cleared first.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Gyan Mishra
Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 3:54 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Cc: BESS , Jef
cisco.com"
Cc: BESS , Jeff Tantsura , "Rabadan,
Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Subject: Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question
+ Ali
Lukas
I noticed that Ali was on the multi site draft which I which expired in 2017
around the same time the DCI overlay draft was submitted. I
Thank you Mankamana.
From Nokia’s perspective I confirm your reference below. We implemented it
without a Seq number based on what we thought was that agreement among authors
pre-IETF106.
Just wanted to mention that there were never any procedures specified for the
sequence number in the
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
Cc: BESS , Jeff Tantsura , "Lukas
Krattiger (lkrattig)" , "saja...@cisco.com"
Subject: Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question
Jorge
In the BGP EVPN NVO RFC 8365 there are controls built in for Mac flooding
related to i
Hi,
I think the changes are ok, since they follow the latest discussions.
The document is ready to progress.
Not that should hold the WG Last Call, but please, fix the following text that
we found confusing, as part of the following revision:
The IGMP Join Synch route MUST carry the ES-Import
Hi Stephane,
Please see in-line with [jorge2].
Thank you!
Jorge
From: slitkows.i...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, August 31, 2020 at 11:49 AM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) ,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref...@ietf.org ,
bess-cha...@ietf.org , bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Shepherd's Review
Robert,
Thank you very much for the review. Great points.
Please see in-line with [Jorge]. All the changes will be included in the next
revision.
Thank you!
Jorge
From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 6:11 PM
To: gen-...@ietf.org
Cc:
Thank you for reviewing, Ralf.
We’ll leave the current normative language then. If anyone else has strong
opinions about it, we can discuss it.
Jorge
From: BESS
Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 at 6:29 PM
To: int-...@ietf.org
Cc: last-c...@ietf.org , bess@ietf.org ,
Hi Bob,
The reason why the dci-evpn-overlay draft does not have RFC7543 as a reference
before rev 09 was because the first time the UMR was specified was in the
dci-evpn-overlay draft. However, later, RFC7543 progressed faster and hence we
had to add the reference in the dci draft.
The length
Hi Barry,
Sounds good.
I expanded those terms in the introduction.
I also changed the abstract as you suggested.
Thank you very much!
Jorge
From: Barry Leiba
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 8:21 PM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Cc: The IESG , draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl
Hi Mališa,
Thank you for your review.
The effect of receiving the wrong O or R flags will mean the receiving host
will trigger the wrong RFC4861 procedures. I added this text, hopefully it is
sufficient:
For example, as specified in [RFC4861], the receiver of a NA message with
O not set
Hi Barry,
Thank you for the review.
Please see in-line with [Jorge].
Thx
Jorge
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 5:35 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia -
GB) ,
Hi Erik,
Thank you for the review.
Please see in-line and let us know your thoughts.
Thanks!
Jorge
From: Erik Kline via Datatracker
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 6:15 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew
Hi Bejamin,
Thanks for reviewing!
Please see my comments in-line with [jorge].
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 6:08 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew
Hi Warren,
Thank you for reviewing!
Please see some comments in-line and let us know if we still need to add
information to the security section.
Thx
Jorge
From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker
Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 6:17 PM
To: The IESG
Cc:
US/Mountain View) , The
IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia -
GB)
Subject: RE: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-06: (with
DISCUSS)
Hi Jorge,
In-line [RW2].
From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mount
Hi Rob,
Thank you.
In-line.
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 3:18 PM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) , The
IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia -
GB)
Subject: RE: Robert
Thank you Warren!
Jorge
From: Warren Kumari
Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 4:38 PM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Cc: The IESG , draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia -
GB)
Subject: Re: Warren Kumari's Discuss
Thank you Rob!
Jorge
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 4:21 PM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) , The
IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia -
GB)
Subject: RE: Robert Wilton's
Hi Benjamin,
A new revision has been published with yours and Warren’s suggestions (rev 08).
Please see in-line with [jorge2].
Thank you!
Jorge
From: Benjamin Kaduk
Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 2:17 AM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Cc: The IESG , draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na
FYI
This revision addresses some concerns raised by the AD review.
Thank you.
Jorge
From: BESS
Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 9:29 AM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-09.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the
Hi Robert,
Thank you for the review.
Please see my comments in-line with [jorge].
Jorge
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker
Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 10:44 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia -
Hi Luc,
Thanks for your email.
I think having similar text in the abstract and beginning of the introduction
is not uncommon, especially if it helps people to get the gist of the document
just by reading the abstract.
Nevertheless we can make all the changes that help the readability during the
Hi Éric,
Thank you very much for reviewing.
Please see in-line below.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 12:19 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia -
GB)
-MPLSSDNNFV2020-WhitePaper.pdf
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Susan Hares
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:39 PM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) , 'Ali
Sajassi (sajassi)' , bess@ietf.org
, i...@ietf.org
Cc: Hu, Jun (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Subject: RE: [bess] IPSec Tunnels and draft-sajassi
Matthew, Stephane,
I assume you meant:
“Also, please indicate if you support publishing the draft as an Informational
RFC.”
If so, I support it for publication as Informational RFC.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
Date: Monday, June 15, 2020 at 3:55 AM
To:
Support to progress the document.
I’m not aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR.
Thank you!
Jorge
From: slitkows.i...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, July 13, 2020 at 1:46 PM
To: bess@ietf.org , draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org , 'idr@ietf. org'
Subject: WGLC, IPR and
Hi Stephane,
Thanks for the review and my apologies for the delay.
We just posted a new revision.
As usual, very good points. Please see in-line.
Thx
Jorge
From: "slitkows.i...@gmail.com"
Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 3:20 PM
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref...@ietf.org"
, 'BESS'
Cc:
Hi Haibo,
I agree with Ketan… furthermore, the spec clearly defines the structure
sub-sub-TLV, where the transposition length and offset are needed; it also
defines how to place those bits into the label field of the NLRI, irrespective
of the transposition length being 24 or 20 or anything
Hi,
Not aware of any relevant IPR.
As co-author, I support the publication of this document as standards track RFC.
Thank you.
Jorge
From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Date: Monday, November 30, 2020 at 6:16 PM
To: draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org
Subject: WG Last Call,
: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 at 4:48 PM
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) , The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-fl...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , Bocci, Matthew (Nokia -
GB)
Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn
Hi Suresh,
Thank you for your comments. Please see in-line.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:40 PM
To: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] Some clarification required for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-03
Hi Authors,
I have the following comments on
101 - 200 of 296 matches
Mail list logo
