[bess] Questions about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-bfd

Hi, I am reading the latest available version of the draft, and I have several questions to the authors. 1. RFC 5882 suggest that BFD sessions in general are coupled with their clients which: * Initiate

Re: [bess] rfc9251

ddress of the queries mentioned above is presumed to be an IP address of an anycast EVPN IRB as defined in RFC 9135, and, if yes, is this EVPN IRB assumed to be Symmetric or Asymmetric. Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 2

Re: [bess] rfc9251

Hi all, Re-sending to the authors since the address : rfc9...@ietf.org<mailto:rfc9...@ietf.org> is invalid. Regards, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 2:01 PM To: rfc9...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: rfc9251 Hi all, I have a question regarding expec

[bess] rfc9251

Hi all, I have a question regarding expected DP behavior in conjunction with RFC 9521: Are the PEs that support this RFC expected to decrement TTL in IP headers of multicast IP packets they forward? This question is equally applicable to the "last mile" PEs that have received IGMP/MLD Joins

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8214 (7837)

John, Lots of thanks for the clarification. HFDU seems good enough. Regards, Sasha From: John Scudder Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 3:44 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8214 (7837) Indeed, opinions may vary

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8214 (7837)

John, Speaking just for myself, I can say that the intent was not crystal clear for me – may be my personal problem, of course. I have looked up the latest version of the 7432bis draft, and I see that the authors have added the highlighted text in Section 7.11:

Re: [bess] A couple of question about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling

Hi, Regarding my Q2: I have encountered deployments in which an EVPN IRB is configured with multiple IP subnets while the single attachment circuit of the broadcast domain it uses is delimited by a single VLAN. Regards, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 3:51 PM

[bess] A couple of question about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling

Hi, I have a couple of question about the AC-aware bundling draft . The background for these questions is given below. 1. Section 6.2 of RFC 7432 that

Re: [bess] [Pals] [EXTERNAL] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7432 (7758)

Andy, Lots of thanks for a prompt response. There seems to be a consensus about the disposition of this Erratum, so I do not expect any problems. Regards, Sasha From: Andrew G. Malis Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 3:04 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: Pavel Mykhailyk ; RFC Errata System

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] [Pals] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7432 (7758)

Pavel, Lots of thanks for your email. Looks as we are aligned. I am not sure if the reporter of an Erratum can revoke it (never tried this). Regards, Sasha From: Pavel Mykhailyk Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 12:33 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: RFC Errata System ; rtg-...@ietf.org

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] [Pals] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7432 (7758)

Hi all, IMHO and FWIW the corrected text proposed in this Erratum is technically incorrect, and. Therefore, the Erratum must be rejected. Ethernet Segment (EVPN Type 4) routes are used solely for discovery of all PEs that participate in the process of election of the Designated Forwarder

[bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-modes-interop

Hi all, I have a few questions regarding the expired EVPN Interoperability Modes draft. 1. Do the authors plan to refresh the expired WG draft? Please note that: * It has been expired for ~4 months already

[bess] A question about draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Hi all, I would appreciate an answer to my question about a certain aspect of Section 8.2.1 of the 7432-bis draft that discusses construction of the per-ES Ethernet A-D (EVPN Type 1) route. 1. This section

Re: [bess] A question about Section 4.4.1 of RFC 9136

Jorge, Again, lots of thanks for your email! It really helps to resolve some serious concerns! Regards, Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 9:19 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; Wim Henderickx (Nokia) ; w...@juniper.net; John E Drake ; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Cc

Re: [bess] A minor contradiction between RFC 9135 and RFC 9136?

Jorge, Lots of thanks for your email. It really helps. Regards, Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 9:19 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; Wim Henderickx (Nokia) ; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) ; John E Drake ; w...@juniper.net; ssa...@cisco.com; stho...@cisco.com Cc: bess

[bess] A minor issue with draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-l3-optimized-irb

Hi all, I have looked up the latest revision of the draft, and I see he following minor issue with it: * On one hand, Section 2 of the draft defines a new flag in the EVPN ARP/ND Extended Community called

[bess] A question about Section 4.4.1 of RFC 9136

Hi all, I have a couple of questions about usage of EVPN Type 5 routes (a.k.a. RT-5) in the Interface-less IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF model described in Section 4.4.1 of RFC 9136. I am copying the diagram shown in Figure 8 in this section for

Re: [bess] A minor contradiction between RFC 9135 and RFC 9136?

Hi all, A gentle reminder... Regards, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2023 2:22 PM To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) ; wim.henderi...@nokia.com; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) ; John E Drake ; w...@juniper.net; ssa...@cisco.com; stho...@cisco.com Subject: FW

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR poll for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-09

Jeffrey and all, I support adoption of this draft. I am neither an author nor a contributor. Regards, Sasha -Original Message- From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 1:51 PM To: 'BESS' Cc: 'bess-cha...@ietf.org' ; draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org

Re: [bess] The significance of bypassing DF Election Behavior in the EVPN Fast Reroute draft

ards, Sasha Regards, Sasha From: Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet) Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 6:00 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: The significance of bypassing DF Election Behavior in the EVPN Fast Reroute draft Hi Sasha, BUM is not in-scope of the dr

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] Endpoint-ID in draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-pals-ple-signaling-00

n, can you please comment? Regards, Sasha From: Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 6:23 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) ; Andrew G. Malis ; p...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Endpoint-ID in draft

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] Re: Endpoint-ID in draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-pals-ple-signaling-00

et up the PW means that the PW is not operationally UP. Regards, Sasha From: Andrew G. Malis Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 4:35 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) ; p...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Endpoint-ID in

[bess] Endpoint-ID in draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-pals-ple-signaling-00

Christian and all, Repeating the gist of my comments on the PLE Signaling draft at the MPLS WG session in Prague today. I think that Endpoint-ID defined in Section 5.5. of this draft is not needed. If you want the

[bess] The significance of bypassing DF Election Behavior in the EVPN Fast Reroute draft

Luc and all,https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-burdet-bess-evpn-fast-reroute-06#section-5.1 I have a question regarding significance of bypassing DF Election behavior in Section 5.1 of the EVPN Fast Reroute draft, at least in the case of All-Active multi-homing and EVPN-MPLS. To the

Re: [bess] A question about draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-l3-optimized-irb

o: Neeraj Malhotra ; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-l3-optimized-...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; Nitsan Dolev Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [bess] A question about draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-l3-optimized-irb Hi Neeraj, Exactly! And I mentioned this during my pre

[bess] A question about draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-l3-optimized-irb

Hi, This the question I have tried to ask during the meeting. The Introduction to draft in question claims "improving MAC scalability of customer bridges and PE devices significantly". The first of

Re: [bess] Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft

Jorge and all, Lots of thanks for a prompt and very encouraging response! I have looked up the -09 revision, and the new text looks OK. Regards, Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Monday, October 23, 2023 4:03 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip

Re: [bess] Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft

, these notes will be useful. Regards, Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 9:57 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing.auth...@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft Hi

Re: [bess] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-07

Matthew, and all, I feel pretty sure that this draft, if approved, should be considered as updating RFC 8584. I also thing that there is no backward compatibility issues. My 2c, Sasha From: rtg-dir On Behalf Of Matthew Bocci (Nokia) Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 7:49 PM To: Luc Andre Burdet

Re: [bess] A question regarding sections 15.2 and 15.3 of draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Ali, Lots of thanks for a very encouraging response. I will be waiting for the -08 version of the draft. Regards, Sasha From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 9:57 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis.auth...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject

[bess] A question regarding sections 15.2 and 15.3 of draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Hi all, I have a question regarding sections 15.2 and 15.3 of the 7432bis draft. Section 15.2 (which is copied from the parallel section of RFC 7432) defines "sticky"

Re: [bess] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-13

t;bridging" EVPN. I apologize for possible churn my previous emails have introduced. Regards, Sasha From: BESS On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 8:26 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) ; Brian Haberman ; int-...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org; dra

Re: [bess] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-13

Ali and all, Just to make it clear: I support advancing the draft "as is". My earlier comments are just about the responses to one if Brian's comments. My 2c, Sasha Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ____ From: Alexander Vainshte

Re: [bess] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-13

d with any specific ES 2. With "bridging EVPN, per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes are advertised just for multi-homed ES, therefore they cannot be used to distribute any information about singke-homed vES. My 2c, Sasha Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ___

Re: [bess] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-13

Ali and all, I am concerned about Ali's response to one of Bryan's comments (copied below): MTU size, control word, flow label, and other L2 attributes are carried in EVPN L2-Attribute Extended Community which is sent along with IMET route or Ether A-D per EVI route. These are independent of

[bess] A comment about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment

Hi, I have a comment about the Virtual Ethernet Segment draft. The first two sentences of the Introduction to this draft says (the problematic text is highlighted):

Re: [bess] Errata 7180 on RFC 4364 BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)

Eric and all, I do not think that this Erratum reflects any real issue. Technical or editorial, with RFC 4364.. The original text in the RFC, IMHO and FWIW, simply means that the VPN architecture does not require a dedicated SAFI for routes with the NLRI comprised by an 8-octet RD followed by

Re: [bess] Comments on the VPN Inter-AS Option BC draft

2023 3:02:28 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org ; Nitsan Dolev ; draft-zzhang-bess-vpn-option-bc.auth...@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Comments on the VPN Inter-AS Option BC draft Sasha, Jeffrey would want to reply to those questions, the draft would need to be specific about t

Re: [bess] Comments on the VPN Inter-AS Option BC draft

C 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-zzhang

[bess] Comments on the VPN Inter-AS Option BC draft

Hi, A few comments on the VPN Inter-AS Option BC draft that has been presented at the BESS WG session in SF last Thursday. I think that the draft presents an elegant and much needed solution for real problem. I fully

Re: [bess] Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft

cide whether it will be installed in the FDB of a MAC-VRF/BD, or in the RIB (and FIB) of an IP-VRF. So I think some text in the draft clarifying this would be most useful. Regards, Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 9:06 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-sajas

Re: [bess] Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft

Jorge, Lots of thanks for your response. Please see more comments inline below. Regards, Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 6:35 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing.auth...@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RE: Question

Re: [bess] Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft

Jorge and all, More of the same: How can a PE that receives an EVPN Type 1 route decide whether it is a per-EVI Ethernet A-D route or a per-EVI IP A-D route? My 2c, Sasha Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent:

Re: [bess] Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft

decide which of these two procedures it should apply to each specific route? I think that the draft should provide an unambiguous answer to this question. Regards, Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 9:23 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] WGLC, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto (with correction on existing IPR)

Matthew, Stephane and all, 1. I support advancing draft-ietf-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto. 2. I am neither an author nor a contributor, but, in any case, I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR. 3. Ribbon(c) has developed a partially compliant implementation of

Re: [bess] Draft draft-ietf-bess-7432bis-07 Section 7.5, 7.11 and 14.1.1

Menachem, More inline below. Regards, Sasha From: Menachem Dodge Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 11:56 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Draft draft-ietf-bess-7432bis-07 Section 7.5, 7.11 and 14.1.1 Hello Sasha, Thank you kindly for your email. Based

Re: [bess] Draft draft-ietf-bess-7432bis-07 Section 7.5, 7.11 and 14.1.1

Menachem, Please see some tentative answers to your questions inline below. Hopefully this helps. Regards, Sasha From: BESS On Behalf Of Menachem Dodge Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 11:29 AM To: bess@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [bess] Draft draft-ietf-bess-7432bis-07 Section 7.5, 7.11

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] MAC Mobility Section 9.1 and 15 - Draft draft-ietf-bess-7432bis-07

Menachem, You are welcome. As for the text in Sections 9.1 and 15 – personally I do not see the need for updated wording. Regards, Sasha From: Menachem Dodge Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 4:04 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [bess] MAC Mobility Section 9.1

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] MAC Mobility Section 9.1 and 15 - Draft draft-ietf-bess-7432bis-07

Menachem and all, Inline below. Hope this helps. Regards, Sasha From: BESS On Behalf Of Menachem Dodge Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 2:46 PM To: bess@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [bess] MAC Mobility Section 9.1 and 15 - Draft draft-ietf-bess-7432bis-07 Hello All, In Section 9.1 of it states:

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] Re: Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b

EVPN routes from the same (loopback) address would at least discourage such implementations. So if you can add such a sentence, please do that! Regards, Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 4:23 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter

Re: [bess] Question on symmetric EVPN IRB RFC 9135

Ali, Sami and all, A short comment inline below. Regards, Sasha From: BESS On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 10:14 PM To: Boutros, Sami ; BESS Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [bess] Question on symmetric EVPN IRB RFC 9135 Hi Sami, Please refer to my response inline in

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] Re: Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b

Jorge, Lots of thanks for your response. Please see inline below. Regards, Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 11:42 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; wang.yub...@zte.com.cn Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-op...@ietf.org; rfc7432...@ietf.org

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] Re:[EXTERNAL] Re:[EXTERNAL] Re:[EXTERNAL] Re: Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b

Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 3:28 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-op...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; jorge.raba...@nokia.com; draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432...@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re:[EXTERNAL] Re:[EXTERNAL] Re:[EXTERNAL] Re: [bess] Discussion on rfc7432bis

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] Re:[EXTERNAL] Re:[EXTERNAL] Re: Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b

ha From: wang.yub...@zte.com.cn Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 7:07 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-op...@ietf.org; rfc7432...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; jorge.raba...@nokia.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re:[EXTERNAL] Re:[EXTERNAL] Re: [bess] Discussion on rfc7432bis and

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] Re:[EXTERNAL] Re: Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b

on RDs in EVPN per ES Ethernet A- (Type 1) routes that exists from the -00 revision of the EVPN draft<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-00#section-10.1.2>. Regards, Sasha From: wang.yub...@zte.com.cn Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 3:56 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc:

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] Re: Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b

Yubao, Please note that an EVPN PE that s attached to a MH ES, generally speaking, has to generate multiple per-ES A-D routes with the ESI of this MH ES in their NLRI. This happens because: * The set of these routes, in its entirety, must carry the Route Targets of all the EVI that are

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] Re: Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b

Jorge, Yubao and all, A couple of comments. The current version of 7432bis says that: * Per-ES EVPN A-D routes MUST use Type 1 RDs with the Administrator field comprising “an IP address of the PE (typically, the

Re: [bess] Questions about Section 4.4.3 of RFC 9136

Model draft<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-18>. What do you think? Regards, Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 3:48 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org; Wim Henderickx (Nokia) ; 'John E Drake' ; Wen Lin ; Ali S

Re: [bess] Questions about Section 4.4.3 of RFC 9136

Jorge, Lots of thanks for your response. Please see some comments to your responses inline below. Regards, Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2023 3:39 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; Wim Henderickx (Nokia) ; 'John E Drake' ; Wen Lin ; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Cc: bess

Re: [bess] Questions about Section 4.4.3 of RFC 9136

Hi all, Adding one more item in Q2 of the original email... Regards, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 10:52 AM To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) ; wim.henderi...@nokia.com; 'John E Drake' ; Wen Lin ; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject

[bess] Questions about Section 4.4.3 of RFC 9136

Hi all, I have a couple of question about Section 4.4.3 of RFC 9136. This section discusses usage of EVPN IP Prefix (Type 5 routes) in the Interface-ful IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF with Unnumbered SBD IRB scenario. Q1: Is this scenario relevant

Re: [bess] Last Call: (EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segment) to Proposed Standard

n received by the EVPN PE in the text of the draft. Such a text would fully resolve my comment. Regards, Sasha Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023, 20:18 To: Alexander Vainshtein C

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Eric, Regarding Regarding your second DISCUSS point "I wonder how the length of the "IP Prefix" field can be known by the receiver ?" This length can be unambiguously inferred from the length of the IP Prefix sub-TLV because in accordance with Section 3.1 of RFC 9136 the IP Prefix and the GW

Re: [bess] Last Call: (EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segment) to Proposed Standard

ts opf thanks in advance Sasha From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 9:50 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Last Call: (EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segment) to Proposed St

Re: [bess] Last Call: (EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segment) to Proposed Standard

Jorge, Lots of thanks for your response. This indeed may be a matter of terminology. Section 3.1.3 of RFC 5960 says: A point-to-point associated bidirectional LSP between LSRs A and B consists of two unidirectional

Re: [bess] Last Call: (EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segment) to Proposed Standard

17, 2023 9:08 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; last-ca...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Last Call: (EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segment) to Proposed Standard Hi Sasha, There would be more cases where you can identify traffic coming f

Re: [bess] Last Call: (EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segment) to Proposed Standard

Hi all, I have doubts regarding the text in Section 1.2 of the draft that refers to LSPs (as opposed to PWs) as virtual Ethernet Segments. The problematic (from my POV) text refers to Figure 2 and says (the problematic part is highlighted): In such scenarios, a virtual ES (vES) is defined

Re: [bess] Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft

. 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 Fizgeer

Re: [bess] Question and comments on the EVPN IP Aliasing draft

Re-sending with a reduced list of addressees… Regards, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 11:30 AM To: 'bess@ietf.org' Cc: Dmitry Valdman ; Nitsan Dolev ; Michael Gorokhovsky ; Ron Sdayoor ; Egon Haparnass ; Shell Nakash ; Marina Fizgeer ; Orly Kariv ; Moti

Re: [bess] New Version Notification for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-06.txt

levant. Regards, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 1:09 PM To: Dikshit, Saumya Cc: bess@ietf.org; Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-06.txt Saumya, Lots of thanks for a prompt response. I do not thin

Re: [bess] New Version Notification for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-06.txt

to add the IP-VRF Export RT first and the MAC-VRF RT second. Regards, Sasha From: Dikshit, Saumya Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 11:56 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org; Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: New Version Notification for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing

Re: [bess] New Version Notification for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-06.txt

in PE-3 will install this route, but it will not install any routes to MAC addresses that have been learned by the MAC-VRF in PE-1 from traffic. My 2c, Sasha From: Dikshit, Saumya Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 3:52 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject

Re: [bess] New Version Notification for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-06.txt

. My 2c, Sasha Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> From: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023, 23:26 To: Dikshit, Saumya ; Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New Version Notification for draft-sajass

Re: [bess] A question about Duplicated MAC Issue in Single Flow-Active multi-homing

be fine IMHO. Regards, Sasha Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> From: Luc André Burdet Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023, 22:31 To: Alexander Vainshtein ; draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org ; Nitsan Dolev ; Alexander F

[bess] A question about Duplicated MAC Issue in Single Flow-Active multi-homing

Hi, I have a questions about detection and handling of the duplicated MAC addresses (as described in Section 15.1 of the 7432bis draft) in the case of Single Flow-active multihoming as described in the EVPN

Re: [bess] New Version Notification for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-06.txt

Jorge and all, I have read the latest revision of the draft and I agree that it is ready for the WG adoption call. >From my POV it meets the two conditions that, IMHO, define WG adoption: * It addresses a real problem * It provides a reasonably good start for solution of this problem.

Re: [bess] Question regarding section 17.3 draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

addresses being from being stuck forever in the FDBs of remote PEs if they are not locally re-learned by one of the remaining PEs attached to the same MH ES. Hope this helps. Regards, Sasha From: Menachem Dodge Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 2:37 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; bess@ietf.org

Re: [bess] Question regarding section 17.3 draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Menachem and all, As I see it, Section 17.3 of 7432bis does not differ from Section 17.3 in RFC 7432. Both documents only define reaction of the EVPN Control

Re: [bess] A doubt in the requirements pertaining to VLAN-aware service interface in draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Ali and all, I have read the new version of Section 6.3 of 7432-bis, and it addresses my concerns. Regards, and lots of thanks for taking care of this issue. Sasha From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Sent: Friday, January 6, 2023 12:09 AM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis.auth

[bess] MAC Move events in EVPN Single Flow-Active Multi-Homing mode

Hi all, I have a question about handling of MAC Move events in EVPN Single Flow-Active (SFA) multi-homing. Section 15 of RFC 7432 defines MAC Move events as following (the relevant text is highlighted): It is possible for a given host

Re: [bess] A question pertaining to validation of LSP Ping Echo requests in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-08

Ali, Again lots of thanks and more comments inline below. Regards, Sasha From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 7:52 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org; Alexander Ferdman ; Dmitry Valdman ; Ron Sdayoor ; Nitsan Dolev ; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org

[bess] A doubt in the requirements pertaining to VLAN-aware service interface in draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Hi all, I have some doubts in the following requirement for Ethernet Tag ID in Section 6.3 of the 7432bis draft (the problematic text is highlighted): In the case where a single VLAN is represented by a single

Re: [bess] A doubt about draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05

cument 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, 2022 at 11:36 PM To: Ali S

Re: [bess] A question pertaining to validation of LSP Ping Echo requests in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-08

mments. Please refer to my responses below marked with “AS>” From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Alexander Vainshtein mailto:alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>> Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 at 1:36 AM To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bes

Re: [bess] A doubt about draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05

Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 5:49 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org Cc: Luc André Burdet ; bess@ietf.org; Nitsan Dolev ; Alexander Ferdman ; Ron Sdayoor ; Dmitry Valdman Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: A doubt about draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-

Re: [bess] A question pertaining to validation of LSP Ping Echo requests in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-08

Hi all, I would like to add one more question (#5 - highlighted) to the previous list. Your timely feedback would be highly appreciated. Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 11:36 AM To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org

[bess] A doubt about draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05

Hi, I have doubts regarding applicability of the solution for L3 fast convergence defined in draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05 for the scenarios in which the MH ES in question operates in Single Flow-Active

[bess] A question pertaining to validation of LSP Ping Echo requests in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-08

Hi all, My colleagues and I have a question about the validation rules for LSP Ping Echo Requests associated with EVPN Type 2 routes in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-08. The problematic text in Section 4.1 of the draft

Re: [bess] [EXTERNAL] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling

Support Regards, Sasha Vainshtein Get Outlook for Android From: BESS on behalf of Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) Sent: Monday, October 10, 2022, 11:40 To: bess-cha...@ietf.org ; bess@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [bess] WG adoption poll

[bess] Subtype assignment for EVPN Attachment Circuit Extended Community in draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling-05

Hi all, I have noticed that Section 8 "IANA Considerations" of the AC-Aware Bundling Service Interface in EVPN draft says: A new transitive extended community Type of 0x06 and Sub-Type of TBD

Re: [bess] Queries on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df

Jorge, Lots of thanks for a very encouraging response! Regards, Sasha Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022, 17:11 To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: bess@ietf.org ; draft-iet

[bess] Yang data model for EVPN?

Dear WG Chairs. The active WG chatter includes the following milestone: Dec 2020 Submit a Yang or SMI data model for E-VPN to IESG as PS draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang However, the EVPN Yang Data Model draft referenced in this milestone has

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

s used these days 6. PW fragmentation and reassembly - not sure it is used these days. Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 1:02 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; S

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

: Gyan Mishra Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 5:15 PM To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) Cc: Alexander Vainshtein ; Andrew Alston - IETF ; SPRING WG ; Stewart Bryant ; bess@ietf.org; mpls-chairs ; p...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pals] [EXTERNAL] Re: [spring] Martini Pseudowires and SR Other

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

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

[bess] Questions about ARP Probes in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-01

Hi, I have some questions regarding the highlighted text in Section 3.2.2 of draft-ietf-evpn-l2gw-proto-01: Peering PE in Single Flow Active mode, upon receiving notification of a protocol convergence-event from access (such as TCN), MUST: * As per legacy VPLS, perform a local MAC

[bess] A question about NLRI of MAC-only EVPN Type 2 routes

Hi, NLRI of an EVPN Type 2 route as described in Section 7.2 of the 7423bis draft includes two optional fields: * IP address. Presence or absence of this field is indicated by its Length (a mandatory field in

Re: [bess] Questions and comments regarding draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-02

To: Alexander Vainshtein ; draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis.auth...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [bess] Questions and comments regarding draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-02 Hi Sasha, Thanks for the careful review. Please see comments inline, for the changes incorporated you will see them in -04

[bess] Questions and comments regarding draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-02

Hi all, I have some new questions regarding this draft. 1. The definition of the F flag in the Layer 2 Attributes Extended Community in Section 7.11 of the draft (added to the list of flags defined in RFC

Re: [bess] Queries on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df

;lowest PE" and not as in the draft. What, if anything, did I miss? Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 1:41 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein ; d

  1   2   >