Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

plane can effectively > manage large-scale SD-WAN overlay networks with minimal manual intervention. > > Thank you very much, > Linda > > -Original Message- > From: John Scudder > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 9:05 AM > To: Linda Dunbar > Cc:

Re: [bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11: (with COMMENT)

On Mar 7, 2024, at 9:47 AM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > > zzh> If the source host is also connected to another BD3 that is attached to > PE2 and it is sending to both BD2 and BD3, then both copies will be switched > to PE1 via the SBD So the only consequence is suboptimality because of

[bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

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

EVI Ethernet A-D routes when multihoming is enabled. To me this suggests that that the intention probably was not so clear for other people as well My 2c, Sasha From: John Scudder Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 3:17 PM To: bess@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8214 (7

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

This looks like a candidate “hold for document update”. The original document doesn’t seem to be in error, the erratum is just suggesting some editorial improvements/clarifications. Note that RFC 2119 keywords are not mandatory [*] in IETF specifications, what’s important is that the intent is

[bess] BESS charter [was: Re: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)]

Hi Linda, To be clear, I hope the BESS chairs and AD will also engage on this question, and I’ve changed the subject line to distinguish this subthread. > On Feb 27, 2024, at 10:47 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: > > ### Is it in charter? > > Looking at the BESS charter, I don't see how this

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Linda, A few replies to some of the more specific/actionable points, below. > On Feb 27, 2024, at 10:47 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote: ... > ### Error in how RFC 9012 is used > > In Section 5.2, the Encapsulation Extended Community is misused. See >

[bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-20: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [bess] [Errata Verified] RFC9135 (7683)

rg/errata/eid7683 > > -- > Status: Verified > Type: Technical > > Reported by: Denis Vrkic > Date Reported: 2023-10-19 > Verified by: John Scudder (IESG) > > Section: 4.2. > > Original Text > - > 2

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8365 (7735)

een explicitly captured in this RFC8365 and > if it is not covered, then it is assumed applicability of RFC7432bis > including RED field setting in ESI Label Extended Community. > Regards, > Ali > From: John Scudder > Date: Friday, February 9, 2024 at 1:18 PM > To: bess@ietf.org &g

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9135 (7686)

Hi Authors and all, While we are looking at RFC 9135, please look at this one too. Looks reasonable. Thanks and happy Friday, —John > On Oct 20, 2023, at 10:39 AM, RFC Errata System > wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9135, > "Integrated Routing and Bridging

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9135 (7684)

Looks right (there is no such thing as the “Tunnel Type Extended Community”). Can the authors please confirm that "Encapsulation Extended Community” is what was intended? Thanks, —John > On Oct 19, 2023, at 5:05 PM, RFC Errata System > wrote: > > The following errata report has been

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8365 (7735)

Hi All, I started to look at this and pretty quickly got lost in a maze of twisty passages. RFC 8365 doesn’t mention the "ESI Label" Extended Community at all, I suppose it gets dragged in through the reliance on RFC 7432 as an underlying mechanism. Since the erratum proposes a new requirement

Re: [bess] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8214 (7562)

Hi BESS WG, RFC 8214 authors, errata submitter, I was looking at this erratum against RFC 8214, https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7562 The erratum proposes making the following change — OLD: In a multihoming All-Active scenario, there is no Designated Forwarder (DF) election, and all

Re: [bess] [Last-Call] Last Call: (BGP Usage for SD-WAN Overlay Networks) to Informational RFC

l protocols which run over TCP or UDP to sort of bless them for running on > such new transport then I think this is not achievable in our short life > time. > > Best, > R. > > > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 9:30 PM John Scudder wrote: > > On Feb 6, 2024, at 2:

Re: [bess] [Last-Call] Last Call: (BGP Usage for SD-WAN Overlay Networks) to Informational RFC

> On Feb 6, 2024, at 2:48 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > I have been using BGP over TCP over TLS and BGP over TCP over DTLS for years > testing Sproute's SDWAN solution. Works perfectly fine. In fact it performs > much better then BGP over TCP over IPSec. Cool. There are a great many things in

Re: [bess] Last Call: (BGP Usage for SD-WAN Overlay Networks) to Informational RFC

TLS. > > What do you think? > > Thank you, > > Linda > -Original Message- > From: John Scudder > Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 11:22 AM > To: Linda Dunbar > Cc: last-c...@ietf.org; Andrew Alston - IETF ; > bess-cha...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; >

Re: [bess] [Last-Call] Last Call: (BGP Usage for SD-WAN Overlay Networks) to Informational RFC

remove the mention of DTLS, which makes more sense to me, so I guess we don’t need to keep discussing it. —John > > Many thx, > R. > > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:38 PM John Scudder > wrote: > I haven’t done a full review of this document, but I did notice that Roman

Re: [bess] Last Call: (BGP Usage for SD-WAN Overlay Networks) to Informational RFC

s/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EMln0MoNjY8Fex0l37MA8JE4Nvpdsho8KhznAatU81RneYnfGVqYueaJT2WggxyJfkcPuhO1uie8yo67KbfHq0s$ > We are working with the author to enhance the draft. > > We will add the reference to BGP over TLS. And remove the BGP over DTLS. > > Can those changes address your comments? > > Thank you, > Linda > > -Original Me

Re: [bess] Last Call: (BGP Usage for SD-WAN Overlay Networks) to Informational RFC

I haven’t done a full review of this document, but I did notice that Roman Danyliw balloted DISCUSS on version 15 [1], asking, among other things, "Are there pointers for BGP over DTLS? Over TLS?”. This doesn’t appear to have been addressed, either in Linda’s reply to Roman [2], or in the text

[bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-12: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

[bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-13: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-13: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

rs). > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-13=--html > > Please see zzh> below for two clarifications. > > > Juniper Business Use Only > -----Original Message- > From: John Scu

[bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

ohn Scudder via Datatracker > wrote: > > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC

[bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-12: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however

[bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-08: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-08: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however

[bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-11: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

FYI Warren Kumari kindly pointed out the section in question was already removed in version 11. I’ve cleared my DISCUSS. —John > On Jul 5, 2023, at 6:10 PM, John Scudder via Datatracker > wrote: > > > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf

[bess] John Scudder's Abstain on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11: Abstain When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

[bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

[bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-10: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

[bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

[bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-07

Hi Authors and WG, I recently looked at some parts of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-07. This isn't a full review but I noticed some things of concern that I thought I'd share. Regards, --John # COMMENTS ## Section 4 ``` An ISF route received by a gateway PE with a D-PATH

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

as you suggested and in the process also secure wider WG consensus for the naming change(s). Thanks, Ketan On Wed, 23 Mar, 2022, 2:18 am John Scudder, mailto:j...@juniper.net>> wrote: On Mar 22, 2022, at 4:39 PM, Ketan Talaulikar mailto:ketant.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: Please

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Mar 22, 2022, at 4:39 PM, Ketan Talaulikar mailto:ketant.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: Please let us know if this addresses your concerns. While I’m disappointed you’ve opted not to “leave the campsite cleaner than you found it”, I can live with it, assuming we’ll then take up the promised

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

A update. > > I can volunteer to put together a short draft for this with your guidance. > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Wed, 23 Mar, 2022, 12:33 am John Scudder, wrote: >> Hi Authors, >> >> I’m not sure if this poin

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Authors, I’m not sure if this point was considered and rejected (in which case let’s close it out in email please), or (more likely) just dropped? > On Feb 18, 2022, at 4:48 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > Hi John, > >> Question: SAFI 128 is called “MPLS-labeled VPN address” in the IANA

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Yao, Thanks for bringing this up. I’ve followed up further in the main thread. Regards, —John > On Feb 17, 2022, at 1:44 AM, liu.ya...@zte.com.cn wrote: > > > > Hi, > > Ron and John both mentioned that leveraging the existing AFI/SAFI may cause > misunderstanding of the SRv6 service

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Further to this point: > On Feb 18, 2022, at 3:32 PM, John Scudder wrote: > >> On Feb 17, 2022, at 3:19 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: >> >>> 2. One area of concern I would have hoped IDR might have looked into is, the >>> document makes a creative use

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

r may advertise his routes to SAFI 1 and leak but no > one has control over it and it is orthogonal to what happens in the SP > network. This is discussed in my previous reply, to Ketan. Thanks, —John > With that I think that #3 and #4 are no longer a concern. > > Best regards, > Robert >

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Ketan, > On Feb 17, 2022, at 3:19 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > >> 3. As Warren Kumari points out in his DISCUSS, “leaks happen”. Subsequent >> discussion turned quickly to the assertion that no, they don’t, in VPN >> address >> families. Let’s accept that claim for the sake of

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Ketan, > On Feb 17, 2022, at 3:19 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > >> 2. One area of concern I would have hoped IDR might have looked into is, the >> document makes a creative use of the MPLS Label field of the NLRI to carry >> the >> Function part of the SID. This means the SID is effectively

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

have happened if the document had been cross-WGLC’d with IDR. Possibly this will result in no input (that happens sometimes) of course. But, if you start now, I don’t anticipate it will turn into the long pole for moving the document forward. Thanks, —John On Feb 17, 2022, at 2:15 PM, John Scudder

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

sometimes) of course. But, if you start now, I don’t anticipate it will turn into the long pole for moving the document forward. Thanks, —John On Feb 17, 2022, at 2:15 PM, John Scudder mailto:jgs=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Thanks, Matthew. I didn’t think of searching for it

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

okia - GB) > > Subject: John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with > DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject l

[bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-11: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

n-line with [jorge]. Thank you John. Jorge From: John Scudder mailto:j...@juniper.net>> Date: Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:09 AM To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>> Cc: The IESG mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized.

[bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-11: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-11: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Jorge, > On Nov 8, 2021, at 10:20 AM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) > wrote: > > First of all, thank you very much for your time and thorough review. You have > great points, and the document is now in a much better shape. We really > appreciate it. > Please see in-line along

[bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-09: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

[bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-14: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-14: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however

[bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-14: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however

[bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-11: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-11: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Adrian, Comments in line below. > On May 14, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Hi John, > > Thanks for the careful review. > >> DISCUSS: >> >> I have several points I’d like to discuss, listed below from most >> general to most

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Gyan, > On May 17, 2021, at 1:50 PM, Gyan Mishra wrote: > > So if GW2 connection to external was down but GW1 still has its connection to > external. GW2 would auto discover GW1 over iBGP and GW2 would advertise both > GW1 and GW2 as reachable gateways. However GW2 has its external peer

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

, and your spec would make matters worse. It might be worth acknowledging this issue somewhere in the document?” I hope this is clearer now. Thanks, —John > Cheers, > Adrian > > From: John Scudder > Sent: 14 May 2021 22:25 > To: Adrian Farrel > Cc: The IESG ; draft-

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

, 2021, at 4:12 PM, John Scudder wrote:  Hi Adrian, Thanks for your reply. Pressed for time at the moment but one partial response: On May 14, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Adrian Farrel mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote: Agree with you that "stuff happens." I think that what yo

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Adrian, Thanks for your reply. Pressed for time at the moment but one partial response: On May 14, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Adrian Farrel mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote: Agree with you that "stuff happens." I think that what you have described is a window not a permanent situation. When GW2

[bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-06: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however

[bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-10: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Works for me. Thanks for the additional discussion. —John > On Apr 15, 2021, at 6:35 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Hi John, > >> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:40 PM John Scudder wrote: >> Hi Donald, >>

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

ke 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com<mailto:d3e...@gmail.com> Thanks, Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com<mailto

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

he OAM packet to thus-and-such”. But right now, I think it’s neither fish nor fowl. Thanks, —John On Apr 13, 2021, at 10:41 AM, John Scudder mailto:jgs=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Thanks, Donald. I agree that my discuss and comments are fixed by -09. —John On Apr 12, 2021, at 9:08 PM,

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

nald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com<mailto:d3e...@gmail.com> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 1:38 PM John Scudder mailto:j...@juniper.net>> wrote: Thanks for hopping threads, I shoulda caught that last one. Your proposed

[bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

Re: [bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Eastlake mailto:d3e...@gmail.com>> wrote: [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi, On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:04 PM John Scudder via Datatracker mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: > > John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-

[bess] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with COMMENT)

Hi Donald, Thanks for your reply. On Apr 7, 2021, at 9:22 PM, Donald Eastlake mailto:d3e...@gmail.com>> wrote: ... 2. Section 2.3: EVPN Network OAM mechanisms MUST provide in-band monitoring capabilities. As such, OAM messages MUST be encoded so that they exhibit identical entropy

[bess] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: (with COMMENT)

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

Re: [bess] Second try: Router's MAC Extended Community in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding

ing along the line of (2). I’ll take care of it in the next rev. soon. Cheers, Ali From: John Scudder Date: Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM To: Cisco Employee Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forward...@ietf.org" , BESS Subject: Re: Second try: Router's MAC Extended C

Re: [bess] Second try: Router's MAC Extended Community in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding

Cheers, Ali From: John Scudder mailto:j...@juniper.net>> Date: Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 11:12 AM To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forward...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forward...@ietf.org>" mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-fo

[bess] Second try: Router's MAC Extended Community in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding

Hi Authors, I haven’t seen a reply to this message from almost a month ago, trying again. Even if you are still debating the answer amongst yourselves, it would be comforting to me to receive a reply to the effect of “we’re still thinking about this and will get back to you by $date”. Thanks,

[bess] Router's MAC Extended Community in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding

Hi Authors, I just went through draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding to look for answers to two questions: 1. Can a router advertise multiple different Router’s MAC values? If yes, what is the receiver supposed to do? 2. Assuming the answer to question 1 is “no”, what is the receiver

[bess] Error handling in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-05

Hi Authors, I noticed the following text about error handling in -05: When a PE receives an EVPN SMET route for a given (*,G), it compares the received version flags from the route with its per- PE stored version flags. If the PE finds that a version flag associated

Re: [bess] Fwd: [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-bess-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-use-cases-00.txt

Hi Gyan, On Apr 28, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Gyan Mishra wrote: Sorry for the audio issues I had during the call. My apologies. Just BTW, I am about 99% sure your problem was the following. You were logged in to the call twice, from two devices. One device was muted, the other one wasn’t. Let’s

Re: [bess] IGMP / MLD Proxy Draft update (NLRI change)

routes that they have imports for. So, PE1 will not receive the RT-8 route from PE100 to cause it any issue. Regards, Ali From: John Scudder mailto:j...@juniper.net>> Date: Sunday, April 26, 2020 at 12:33 PM To: Cisco Employee mailto:saja...@cisco.com>> Cc: "Mankamana Mishra (m

Re: [bess] IGMP / MLD Proxy Draft update (NLRI change)

format. I should just mention that for RT-4 changes that all the vendors did long time ago, the approach (1) was adopted. Regards, Ali From: John Scudder Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 3:01 PM To: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" Cc: "bess@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-bess-evp

Re: [bess] Taking slot requests for interim meeting - Last week of April

On Apr 25, 2020, at 1:45 PM, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) wrote: > > Thanks for checking, is it visible now ? Yes, thanks. —John ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Taking slot requests for interim meeting - Last week of April

Hi Mankamana, Is the agenda published somewhere? I don’t see it in the usual place (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2020-bess-01/session/bess is empty). Thanks, —John On Apr 16, 2020, at 2:02 PM, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) mailto:mankamis=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:

Re: [bess] IGMP / MLD Proxy Draft update (NLRI change)

Hi All, Regarding the proposal to remove the Leave Group Synchronization field from the Multicast Leave Synch Route, the current proposal is inadequate. Below I discuss why, and provide an alternate suggestion. For those who don’t want to read my wall of text, my key motivation is simple: -

[bess] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07

[resending with corrected draft alias in cc, sorry about that] Hi All, A working group last call has been requested for draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07. Please reply to the list with your comments. As usual note we cannot advance the draft without participation from the group. Please get your

[bess] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07

Hi All, A working group last call has been requested for draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-07. Please reply to the list with your comments. As usual note we cannot advance the draft without participation from the group. Please get your comments in before October 20, 2017. We previously had a WGLC

Re: [bess] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-13: (with COMMENT)

On May 7, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > It's > not unreasonable to expect that: > > 1. Acronyms be expanded on first use. All the more so since the RFC Editor will insist on this anyway. --John ___ BESS mailing list