Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-sr-bess-evpn-dpath-04

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

As co-author, I support this document for WG adoption.
Not aware of any related undisclosed IPR.

Regards, 
Patrice Brissette 
Distinguished Engineer 
Cisco Systems 





On 2024-03-06, 13:32, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" mailto:zzh...@juniper.net>> wrote:




Hi,


This email begins a two-week WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-sr-bess-evpn-dpath-04 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sr-bess-evpn-dpath/ 
).


Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list. 
The IDR list is copied in this call because of the Domain Path Attribute 
(D-PATH) introduced in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking.


We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).


If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.


If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond to the IPR poll only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been 
disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.


This poll for adoption closes on 20th March 2024.


Thanks.




BESS chairs


Juniper Business Use Only



___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] 2nd WG last call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-12

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

As co-author, I’m supporting this work.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette
Distinguished Engineer
Cisco Systems




From: BESS  on behalf of "Matthew Bocci (Nokia)" 

Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 09:20
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] 2nd WG last call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-12

This email begins a two-week working group last call on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-12 
(draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-12 - EVPN Virtual Ethernet 
Segment)

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS mailing list.

The primary purpose of this second last call is to double check that updates 
following AD review of the previous version of the draft did not change the 
meaning of the text, given that there are a number of known implementations of 
the draft. Please pay special attention to the changes which you can see using 
the diff tool on the history page of the datatracker.

This WG LC ends on Wednesday 16th August 2023.

Thanks

Matthew


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Request for an expedited WG adoption call for draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-args

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

I’m supporting this draft.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette
Distinguished Engineer
Cisco Systems




From: BESS  on behalf of "Matthew Bocci (Nokia)" 

Date: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 13:25
To: Ketan Talaulikar , "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 

Cc: "draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-a...@ietf.org" 
, BESS 
Subject: Re: [bess] Request for an expedited WG adoption call for 
draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-args

Hi Ketan

If we can do a quick implementation poll for the changes proposed in the draft, 
that would help.

Thanks

Matthew

From: Ketan Talaulikar 
Date: Thursday, 27 July 2023 at 15:02
To: bess-cha...@ietf.org 
Cc: draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-a...@ietf.org 
, BESS 
Subject: Request for an expedited WG adoption call for 
draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-args

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links 
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.


Hello Chairs,

The authors would like to drop this gentle reminder of our request for an 
expedited WG adoption call for this draft that we had presented at IETF116.

The draft is in essence an "errata" for a certain portion our BESS WG RFC9252. 
The concerned portions of the specification have been in development at various 
vendors for quite some time now. Interop issues were identified and these 
clarifications are needed for smooth interop and deployments that are ongoing.

Thanks,
Ketan (on behalf of co-authors)

On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:12 AM Ketan Talaulikar 
mailto:ketant.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello All,

We had presented https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-args/ 
at the IETF 116.

The slides are available at: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/materials/slides-116-bess-draft-trr-bess-srv6-args-00.pdf

Since this draft aims to fix some issues in the RFC9252 that was published by 
BESS WG, we had sought feedback/review from the WG and requested the WG chairs 
for an expedited WG adoption.

We also wanted to check if any follow-up was required for the comments that 
were discussed at the meeting.

Thanks,
Ketan (on behalf of co-authors)

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

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

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi John,

Thank you for your comments.
Please see my updates ...included in v12 (available shortly) and related 
responses below

Regards, 
Patrice Brissette 
Distinguished Engineer 
Cisco Systems 





On 2023-07-05, 20:23, "John Scudder via Datatracker" mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote:


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 refer to 
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.




The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment/ 







--
COMMENT:
--


# John Scudder, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11
CC @jgscudder


(Thanks to Warren Kumari for pointing out that version 11 already removed the
former Section 9. I apologize for the noise!)


I found this document hard to review, for various reasons, so I don't really
consider this a complete review. In particular, I can't say with confidence
that it would be possible to build an interoperable implementation using this
spec. Because I currently don't have that confidence, but don't have a specific
action plan to propose to remedy the situation, I am balloting ABSTAIN.


Despite that I have a number of comments I hope may be useful. Although I
haven't currently chosen to make them a DISCUSS, I hope you will consider them,
especially the ones that relate to elements of procedure that are unclear.


## COMMENTS


### Abstract + Section 1


Please expand "EVC" on first use in Section 1, and please simply write it out
in words in the abstract (you could also include the "EVC" initialism if you
think it's valuable to some readers; from my point of view it's not needed in
the abstract though).

 Done in both section


### Section 1.1


"ENNIs are commonly used to reach off-network / out-of-franchise customer sites
via independent Ethernet access networks or third- party Ethernet Access
Providers (EAP) (see Figure 1)."


As far as I can tell, Figure 1 doesn't elucidate this sentence. If it's
supposed to, I think the figure needs more labeling. Nothing in the figure is
labeled as an "independent Ethernet access network" or "EAP" and no context is
provided to suggest what's considered off-network vs on-network (I see there's
a box called "Carrier Ethernet Network" and another called "IP/MPLS Core
Network" but those are technologies, not owners).


Given that the ENNI presumably is the demarcation between the SP and the third
party, and from other context, I'm guessing the "Carrier Ethernet Network" is
considered the third party in this case, and the IP/MPLS Core Network the SP.
Probably it would be enough to add those notations to the figure.

 Remove figure.1 from the sentence. Added new text clarifying the 
third party context as suggested here.
Updated also the picture accordingly

### Section 1.1 and throughout


This document has specific numbers at various places, for example, in Section
1.1 we have "ENNIs can aggregate traffic from hundreds to thousands of vESes".
Surely the exact number (even order-of-magnitude) is a moving target (unless
it's bounded by some protocol constant, which it's not AFAICT).


Probably the numbers should either be made abstract, or qualified by something
like "at time of writing".

 This one is tricky. Perhaps we can use the wording ... large and 
define large the first time is used.
Added a sentence explaining why and how they are used. 


### Section 1.1, off-networks


"As a result, ENNIs and their associated EVCs are a key element of SP
off-networks"


What is an "SP off-network"? This isn't a well-known term of art.

 remove unnecessary text.


### Section 1.1


"Figure 1 depicts two PE devices (PE1 and PE2) each with an ENNI where a number
of vESes are aggregated on - each of which through its associated EVC."


AFAICT there is a many:one relationship between EVCs and vESes. Is that right?
If so I think it's important to establish that context in this section, and in
that case, the sentence needs a rewrite, as in,


NEW:
Figure 1 depicts two PE devices (PE1 and PE2) each with an ENNI that aggregates
a number of vESes. Each vES is associated with an EVC, or in the case of the
multi-homed vES connected to CE3, two EVCs.

 New text is used

(I've also fixed some unrelated grammatical errors.)


### Section 1.2 ES or vES?


Would it be more correct to 

Re: [bess] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11: (with COMMENT)

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Erik,

Thank you for your comments. New update addressing them will be available (v12) 
shortly

And more below.

Regards, 
Patrice Brissette 
Distinguished Engineer 
Cisco Systems 





On 2023-07-06, 02:44, "Erik Kline via Datatracker" mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote:


Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-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 to 
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.




The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment/ 







--
COMMENT:
--


# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11
CC @ekline


* comment syntax:
- https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md 



* "Handling Ballot Positions":
- https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 



## Comments


* It's not clear to me why this isn't just Informational.

 Why do you think this draft should be informational? There are new 
mechanism being described in this document.


### S3.3


* I get that this functionality is highly desirable, but is there some loss
of interoperability among vendor equipment if it's not present? In other
words, why is this a MUST as opposed to SHOULD?


Seems like the alternative is that the switching among neighbor EVCs is
definitely less efficient, but could nevertheless be made to work.

 EVPN is about provide L2 reachability (intra-subnet communication). 
Connected access device/network sharing common subnet must have connectivity.

### S3.4


* These don't seem like "requirements" to me, just service descriptions.


### S3.5


* R5a does not seem like a requirement.

 What are you suggesting for these 2 comments? 








___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-11: (with COMMENT)

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Martin.

Thank you for your comments. They are addressed as part of the new rev12 
(available shortly)

Please see more below

Regards, 
Patrice Brissette 
Distinguished Engineer 
Cisco Systems 





On 2023-07-05, 16:42, "Martin Duke via Datatracker" mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote:


Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-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 to 
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.




The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment/ 







--
COMMENT:
--


I have serious readability concerns, but the RFC Editor will catch a lot of it.
I'd like to focus on the problems that limited my understanding of this
document.


The abstract is nearly impenetrable, thanks to dense acronyms and grammar
mistakes. The verbiage is repeated in the Introduction. In particular


OLD
These solutions introduce Single-Active and All-Active for an Ethernet Segment
(ES), NEW These solutions introduce Single-Active and All-Active redundancy
modes for an Ethernet Segment (ES),
 Done

(S1.2)
"In some cases, this aggregation of PWs that share the same LSP pair may not be
possible. For instance, if PW3 were terminated into a third PE, e.g. PE3,
instead of PE1, the vES would need to be defined on a per individual PW on each
PE, i.e. PW3 and PW5 would belong to ES-1, whereas PW4 and PW6 would be
associated to ES-2."
 Indeed..corrected.

"defined on a per individual PW on each PE" is grammatically incorrect, but I
think you mean that each PW gets its own vES. But that would mean that you need
four ESs, not two.
 Not really since PW share common LSP. 


(S2) Please add EVI and Ethernet A-D to the glossary

 Done







___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Warren, Paul, 

I just submit a v11 version removing that section.
I was quite surprise as you were about this section. It seems like it came from 
an old template.

Regards, 
Patrice Brissette 
Distinguished Engineer 
Cisco Systems 





On 2023-07-05, 13:38, "Warren Kumari via Datatracker" mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote:


Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-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 to 
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.




The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment/ 







--
DISCUSS:
--


Be ye not afraid - this DISCUSS should be easy to address.
Please see
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 

for some information on DISCUSS ballots


Like Paul Wouters I find Section 9 ("Intellectual Property Considerations")
troubling, but I'm sufficiently troubled that I feel it deserves a DISCUSS. I
*think* that what the text says is compatible with what is in BCP79 / the
copyright boilerplate, but: 1: IANAL and 2: if it's exactly the same, why is
this section here?


If it *not* the same, then I think that this requires some discussions with the
IETF Trust / lawyers / etc...


I strongly suggest removing it, or, if it is needed for some sort of corporate
/ legal reason that it be justified / explained.




--
COMMENT:
--


Thank you very much for writing this document.









___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

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

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

As co-author, I’m supportive. I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR

Regards,
Patrice Brissette
Distinguished Engineer
Cisco Systems




From: BESS  on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 

Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 04:14
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WGLC, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto (with correction on existing IPR)


Hi WG,







This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on

draft-ietf-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto [1].







This poll runs until 6/30.







We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to

this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF

IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).



If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document, please

respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any

relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from

all the Authors and Contributors.



There is currently one IPR disclosed.







If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly

respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in

conformance with IETF rules.







We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2]. Please

indicate if you are aware of any implementations.







Thank you,



Matthew & Stephane







[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto/



[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR poll for draft-sajassi-bess-secure-evpn-06

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

I support the adoption
Regards,
Patrice Brissette
Distinguished Engineer
Cisco Systems




From: BESS  on behalf of "Matthew Bocci (Nokia)" 

Date: Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 06:36
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-sajassi-bess-secure-e...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 

Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR poll for draft-sajassi-bess-secure-evpn-06

Hello,

This email begins a two-week WG adoption poll for 
draft-sajassi-bess-secure-evpn-06 [1].
Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there is currently no IPR disclosure against this document.
If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on June 9th 2023

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sajassi-bess-secure-evpn

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption for draft-brissette-bess-evpn-vpws-seamless

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

As author, I support this document. I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette,
Distinguished Engineer,
Cisco Systems




From: BESS  on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 

Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 04:02
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption for draft-brissette-bess-evpn-vpws-seamless

Hello,


This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-vpws-seamless-07 [1].
Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there is currently no IPR disclosure against this document.
If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on June 7th.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-bess-evpn-vpws-seamless/
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Routing directorate "last call" review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-07

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Jon,

Thank for the review. Update addressing your comments was made in v08.  
To help the review of the updates, please see below, how each comment has been 
addressed:

General updates:

Replaced globally  [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding] by [RFC9135]
Replaced globally “colour” by “color”

Please look for  below.

Regards, 
Patrice Brissette, 
Distinguished Engineer, 
Cisco Systems 





On 2022-07-01, 13:03, "Jon Hardwick" mailto:jonhardw...@microsoft.com>> wrote:


Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-07
Reviewer: Jon Hardwick
Review Date: 1 July 2022
IETF LC End Date: N/A (last call has not been issued for this draft yet)
Intended Status: Standards Track


Summary:
I have some minor concerns (mostly editorial) about this document that I think
should be resolved before publication.

Comments:
---

Section 4.2 reads like a procedure but is light on normative language. In
particular, I think this could be formalized better:

   The ESI label extended community ([RFC7432] Section 7.5) is not
   relevant to Grouping Ethernet A-D per ES.  The label value is NOT
   used for encalsulating BUM packets for any split-horizon function and
   the 'Single-Active' but is left as 0.

 Replaced “the 'Single-Active' but is left as 0.  To save label 
space, all Grouping Ethernet A-D per ES of a PE SHOULD use same label value.” 
By 
“The ESI label extended community MAY not be added to Grouping Ethernet A-D per 
ES and SHOULD be ignored on receiving PE.”

Are we saying that the label value in this extended community MUST be set to
zero?  Or that the extended community SHOULD NOT be included in the update? 
What is meant by ".and the 'Single-Active'"?

NB Typo "encalsulating" in the above.

 Typo is fixed.

---

Section 5.2 (p17) "it is recommended to assign a B-MAC per vES and upon EVC
failure" - should that be RECOMMENDED?

 Replaced recommended by RECOMMENDED

---

Section 5.3 - I think this whole section is normative, and so each statement
should use normative language and the active voice.  For example:

BEFORE: "When a PE advertises an Ethernet A-D per ES route for a given
   vES, it is coloured as described in Section 4.2.1 using the
   physical port MAC by default."

AFTER: "The PE SHOULD colour each Ethernet A-D per ES route that it advertises
for a given
   vES, as described in Section 4.2.1.  The PE SHOULD use the
   physical port MAC by default."

(I think that SHOULD is the appropriate strength of requirement here.)

 Fixed several sentence in bullet 1 to 4 with proper normative 
language

---

Section 5.3 (p18) "the propagation if failure" -> "the propagation of failure"
 Fixed typo

---

Section 5.4 - Same comments apply about using normative language and the active
voice (albeit this section already does that in some places). Section 5.5 -
Ditto.

 Fixed several sentence in bullet 1 to 4 with proper normative 
language
 Same as been done for section 5.5.
---

Section 8 - IANA Considerations
I cannot find reference to this new extended community anywhere in the
document. I note that it was present in earlier versions of the draft. Has the
need for it been removed? If so, you should change this section to request to
IANA that they remove the early allocation.

 Section 8 has been updated to “This document requests no actions 
from IANA.”
Since the I-D.ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush document already defined the 
I-SID extcom.

---

References: I think the reference to [I-D.ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush] is
a normative reference.
 Reference has been moved to normative reference.





___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-08

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Meral,

Thanks again for your review. Please see v10 capturing the outcome of the 
discussion below.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette,
Distinguished Engineer,
Cisco Systems




From: Meral Shirazipour 
Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:07
To: Patrice Brissette 
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-08

Hi,
   thank you looks good to me, please reply to the list as well once you update 
the draft.

Best Regards,
Meral


From: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) 
Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 at 6:58 AM
To: Meral Shirazipour 
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-08
Hey Meral,

Thanks for the review. Will the following address your comment:

"An Ethernet-Segment, as defined in RFC7432, represents a set of Ethernet links 
connecting customer site to one or more PE.
 The concept is extended to covered virtual Ethernet connectivity. An ES can be 
associated to Ethernet links like EVC (e.g. VLANs)."


Regards,
Patrice Brissette,
Distinguished Engineer,
Cisco Systems





On 2023-04-24, 19:34, "Meral Shirazipour via Datatracker" mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote:


Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review result: Ready with Nits


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.


For more information, please see the FAQ at


<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq> 
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq;>.


Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-08
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2023-04-24
IETF LC End Date: 2023-04-27
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat


Summary: This draft is almost ready to be published as Standard RFC, no other
comments than those on the list.


Major issues:


Minor issues:


Nits/editorial comments:
-Section 1 , "This document extends the Ethernet Segment concept so that an ES
can
be associated to a set of EVCs (e.g., VLANs) or other objects such as
MPLS Label Switch Paths (LSPs) or Pseudowires (PWs), referred to as
Virtual Ethernet Segments (vES)." & Section 1.1


It would be great to add a sentence on why we need this and what is the current
alternative.


-[Page 20], Section 5.4, "large numbe of "--->"large number of "







___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Routing directorate "last call" review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-07

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Jon, 

Your comments have been addressed couple weeks ago. There are part of v08+.
Please let me know if they are more to address. 

Regards, 
Patrice Brissette, 
Distinguished Engineer, 
Cisco Systems 





On 2022-07-01, 13:03, "Jon Hardwick" mailto:jonhardw...@microsoft.com>> wrote:


Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-07
Reviewer: Jon Hardwick
Review Date: 1 July 2022
IETF LC End Date: N/A (last call has not been issued for this draft yet)
Intended Status: Standards Track


Summary:
I have some minor concerns (mostly editorial) about this document that I think 
should be resolved before publication. 


Comments:
---


Section 4.2 reads like a procedure but is light on normative language. In 
particular, I think this could be formalized better:


The ESI label extended community ([RFC7432] Section 7.5) is not
relevant to Grouping Ethernet A-D per ES. The label value is NOT
used for encalsulating BUM packets for any split-horizon function and
the 'Single-Active' but is left as 0.


Are we saying that the label value in this extended community MUST be set to 
zero? Or that the extended community SHOULD NOT be included in the update? What 
is meant by ".and the 'Single-Active'"?


NB Typo "encalsulating" in the above.


---


Section 5.2 (p17) "it is recommended to assign a B-MAC per vES and upon EVC 
failure" - should that be RECOMMENDED?


---


Section 5.3 - I think this whole section is normative, and so each statement 
should use normative language and the active voice. For example:


BEFORE: "When a PE advertises an Ethernet A-D per ES route for a given
vES, it is coloured as described in Section 4.2.1 using the
physical port MAC by default."


AFTER: "The PE SHOULD colour each Ethernet A-D per ES route that it advertises 
for a given
vES, as described in Section 4.2.1. The PE SHOULD use the
physical port MAC by default."


(I think that SHOULD is the appropriate strength of requirement here.)


---


Section 5.3 (p18) "the propagation if failure" -> "the propagation of failure"


---


Section 5.4 - Same comments apply about using normative language and the active 
voice (albeit this section already does that in some places).
Section 5.5 - Ditto.


---


Section 8 - IANA Considerations
I cannot find reference to this new extended community anywhere in the 
document. I note that it was present in earlier versions of the draft. Has the 
need for it been removed? If so, you should change this section to request to 
IANA that they remove the early allocation.


---


References: I think the reference to [I-D.ietf-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush] is 
a normative reference.





___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-08.txt

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Andrew,

I updated a new version (-08) addressing the comments from Jon 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-07-rtgdir-lc-hardwick-2022-08-03/).
Please proceed with the document.

Regards, 
Patrice Brissette, 
Distinguished Engineer, 
Cisco Systems 





On 2023-04-12, 15:47, "BESS on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org 
" mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org 
> wrote:




A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS
(BESS) WG of the IETF.


Title : EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segment
Authors : Ali Sajassi
Patrice Brissette
Rick Schell
John E Drake
Jorge Rabadan
Filename : draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-08.txt
Pages : 25
Date : 2023-04-12


Abstract:
EVPN and PBB-EVPN introduce a family of solutions for multipoint
Ethernet services over MPLS/IP network with many advanced features
among which their multi-homing capabilities. These solutions
introduce Single-Active and All-Active for an Ethernet Segment (ES),
itself defined as a set of physical links between the multi-homed
device/network and a set of PE devices that they are connected to.
This document extends the Ethernet Segment concept so that an ES can
be associated to a set of EVCs (e.g., VLANs) or other objects such as
MPLS Label Switch Paths (LSPs) or Pseudowires (PWs), referred to as
Virtual Ethernet Segments (vES). This draft describes the
requirements and the extensions needed to support vES in EVPN and
PBB-EVPN.


The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment/ 



There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-08
 



A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-08
 



Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts




___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess 




___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

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

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

As co-author of this draft, I support it and I’m not aware of any undisclosed 
IPR.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Distinguished Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of "Stephane Litkowski (slitkows)" 

Date: Monday, October 10, 2022 at 04:40
To: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" , "bess@ietf.org" 

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

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling-06 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on October 24th 2022.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling/

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] draft-brissette-bess-evpn-vpws-seamless

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

I would like to request workgroup adoption of 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-bess-evpn-vpws-seamless/ draft.
The draft has been around since 2019, it is co-authored across multiple vendors 
and there are shipping solutions using it.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn



___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling WG adoption

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

I would like to request workgroup adoption of 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ac-aware-bundling
 draft.
The draft has been around since 2018, it is co-authored across multiple vendors 
and there are shipping solutions using it.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn



___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

I support publication and am not aware of undisclosed IPR.

Implementation has been shipped on Cisco IOS-XR.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 at 08:58
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recov...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 

Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: WGLC, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: Patrice Brissette , , 
, , Ali Sajassi 
Resent-Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 at 08:58

Hi WG,

This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03 [1].

This poll runs until Monday 14th February 2022.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.
There is currently no IPR disclosed.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2]. Please indicate 
if you are aware of any implementations.

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane

[1] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-03 - Fast Recovery for EVPN DF 
Election
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] A few questions pertaining to the Virtual Ethernet Segment draft

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

Same... content is still empty 

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
 
http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn
 
 
 

On 2021-11-18, 10:33, "Alexander Vainshtein"  
wrote:

Resending as it seems some people have not received it in full...

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com

From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 1:04 PM
To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: A few questions pertaining to the Virtual Ethernet Segment draft

Hi,
I have several questions with regard to the Virtual Ethernet Segment draft

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Anoop,

Which specifics haven’t we answer?

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani 

Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 09:48
To: "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 
Cc: Luc André Burdet , "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, BESS 
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02

Hi Stefane,

Yes, the document is much improved.  There's the last exchange below which I 
didn't get a response to.  I think that would help convey the intent of the 
authors more clearly.

Thanks,
Anoop

On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 4:01 AM 
mailto:slitkows.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Anoop,

Could you confirm that you are fine with the changes proposed by Luc, so we can 
move the draft forward to next steps ?

Thanks !


From: Anoop Ghanwani mailto:an...@alumni.duke.edu>>
Sent: lundi 5 juillet 2021 21:39
To: Luc André Burdet mailto:laburdet.i...@gmail.com>>
Cc: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; 
bess-cha...@ietf.org; BESS 
mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02

Thanks Luc.

Would it be possible to add a line in section 4 along the lines of:

"While the various algorithms for DF election are discussed in Sections 
4.2-4.4, unlike all-active load balancing, the choice of algorithm in this 
solution doesn't impact performance in any way since there is only one active 
link."

Anoop

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:31 AM Luc André Burdet 
mailto:laburdet.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thank you for your careful review Anoop;
I have uploaded -03 which I believe addresses all comments.

Regarding the section specifying procedures for all DF Election algorithms: it 
is included per a previous review comment, primarily to be comprehensive for 
all existing DF Algos.  I agree the result may generally not vary much but the 
details of the procedure need to be specified. I hope this clears up any 
confusion.

Regards,
Luc André

Luc André Burdet |  Cisco  |  
laburdet.i...@gmail.com  |  Tel: +1 613 254 4814


From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Anoop Ghanwani mailto:an...@alumni.duke.edu>>
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 19:23
To: "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 
mailto:slitkows.i...@gmail.com>>
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
mailto:bess-cha...@ietf.org>>, BESS 
mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02


I support publication of this document.  The following are my comments.

==
Abstract

- I think it would be better to list the RFC rather than say "EVPN standard", 
since EVPN standard is an evolving term.
- "support of port-active" -> "support for port-active"

- The last line of the abstract should be moved to the introduction.

Section 1

- "The determinism provided by active-standby per interface is also required 
for certain QOS features to work."
  Can you provide an example of this?
- Change
"A new term of load-balancing mode, port-active load- balancing is then 
defined."
to
"A new load-balancing mode, port-active load-balancing is defined."

- Change
"This draft describes how that new redundancy mode can be supported via EVPN"
to
"This draft describes how that new load balancing mode can be supported via 
EVPN"
(Just for consistency, I think it would be better to search the doc throughout 
and make sure that "redundancy" is not being used in place of "load balancing", 
since we are defining a new load balancing method, not a new redundancy 
method/topology.)

- Is "Bundle-Ethernet interfaces" a well-known term?  I think it may be better 
to drop Bundle.  I am not sure if what is meant here is "members of a LAG".

- "multi-homing to CE" -> "multi-homing to the CE".

Section 2

- Change
"form a bundle and operate as a Link Aggregation Group (LAG)"
to
"form and operate as a Link Aggregation Group (LAG)"
(In EVPN bundling normally refers to many:1 mapping of VLAN to VNI/service 
instance).

- Include reference for ICCP.

- Change
"CE device connected to Multi-homing PEs may has"
to
"CE device connected to multi-homing PEs may have"

- Change
"Links in the Ethernet Bundle"
to
"links in the LAG"

- Change
"Any discrepancies from this list is left for future study."
to
"Any discrepancies from this list are left for future study."

Section 3

- Missing period at the end of (b).

- Layer2 attributes -> Layer-2 attributes.

Section 4.2/4.3

I got a bit confused here.  The draft discusses Modulo, HRW.  Do we essentially 
end up with a single active link, but just that which link is chosen is 
dependent on the algorithm?  If so, what is the benefit of doing so?  I can see 
why multiple algorithms are of value when we are doing VLAN-based load 
balancing to multiple active links.

Section 5

- "Bundle-Ethernet" -> "LAG"

Section 5.1

- "per ES 

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

As co-author, I’m fully supportive.
I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 

Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 02:03
To: 'BESS' 
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc


Hi,



This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc [1]



Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a Standards Track RFC.



This poll runs until the 12th October 2021.



We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).



If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the 
authors and contributors.

There are currently two IPR disclosures.



In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per 
the BESS policy in [2].



Thank you,

Matthew & Stephane





[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

As co-author, I support this draft. I’m not aware of IPR other than the 2 
mentioned below.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 

Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 02:03
To: 'BESS' 
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc


Hi,



This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc [1]



Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a Standards Track RFC.



This poll runs until the 12th October 2021.



We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).



If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the 
authors and contributors.

There are currently two IPR disclosures.



In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per 
the BESS policy in [2].



Thank you,

Matthew & Stephane





[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG POLL: Moving forward draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery by dropping "Handshake" option

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Anoop,

This approach is optional.
The intent here is to remove “a” handshake mechanism which is too complex and 
not always working.
Other people may come with different solution in the future if needed be.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani 

Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 12:45
To: "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" , BESS 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG POLL: Moving forward 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery by dropping "Handshake" option

My only concern with the time sync approach is that it imposes the requirement 
for some kind of time sync protocol (either ntp or ptp).  From what I 
understand, running these in the data center is not that common.

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:19 AM 
mailto:slitkows.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi WG,

Just as a reminder, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery currently proposes 
two options: 1) use time synchronization, 2) Use handshake.

We have issues moving forward the draft because of some controversy on the 
handshake option while the time sync option seems to have implementations.

It seems that the authors/co-authors agreed to progress the document by 
removing the handshake option, leaving the “time sync” as the core of the 
document.

As the document is a WG document, we (chairs) need to confirm that there is no 
objection from the WG progressing the document in such a way.

Please provide your feedback.

We are opening a poll starting today and ending on  18th June  to 
gather feedbacks.

Thanks,

Stephane

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery/




___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG POLL: Moving forward draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery by dropping "Handshake" option

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

I completely support the idea of removing the complex handshake solution from 
the draft.
The NTP approach is lean and clean
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 

Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 at 05:20
To: 'BESS' 
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG POLL: Moving forward draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery 
by dropping "Handshake" option

Hi WG,

Just as a reminder, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery currently proposes 
two options: 1) use time synchronization, 2) Use handshake.

We have issues moving forward the draft because of some controversy on the 
handshake option while the time sync option seems to have implementations.

It seems that the authors/co-authors agreed to progress the document by 
removing the handshake option, leaving the “time sync” as the core of the 
document.

As the document is a WG document, we (chairs) need to confirm that there is no 
objection from the WG progressing the document in such a way.

Please provide your feedback.

We are opening a poll starting today and ending on  18th June  to 
gather feedbacks.

Thanks,

Stephane

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery/




___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

As co-author of this work, I fully support this WGLC and I’m not aware of any 
related IPR.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 

Date: Monday, May 31, 2021 at 03:31
To: 'BESS' 
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02


Hello WG,







This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on

draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02 [1].







This poll runs until * the 7th of June *.







We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to

this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF

IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).



If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please

respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any

relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from

all the Authors and Contributors.



There is currently no IPR disclosed.







If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly

respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in

conformance with IETF rules.







We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].







Thank you,



Stephane & Matthew







[1]

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa/



[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG and IPR poll adoption poll for draft-krattiger-evpn-modes-interop

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

As others mentioned, very important document.
I support.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 

Date: Monday, April 19, 2021 at 14:07
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG and IPR poll adoption poll for 
draft-krattiger-evpn-modes-interop

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-krattiger-evpn-modes-interop-03 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on 4th May 2021.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane


[1]  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krattiger-evpn-modes-interop/

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Gyan,

RFC8584 talks about all-active which sometime is referred as active-active per 
flow where a host is reachable via both MH PE.
The L2GW protocol draft is completely different. It is about single-active per 
flow load balancing where a host is reachable via a single MH PE at a time.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: Gyan Mishra 
Date: Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 13:59
To: Patrice Brissette 
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" , "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 

Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto

I support WG adoption.

I had one question for the authors.

Does RFC 8584 DF election optimized per flow load balancing algorithm for SHD 
MHD scenarios which updates RFC 7432 address the problem and solution described 
in this draft.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 11:20 AM Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) 
mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
As co-author I support adoption.
I am aware of an IPR which is in process of being disclosed.

That is yet another important draft.
There are implementations of that draft and customers are already using them.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
"slitkows.i...@gmail.com<mailto:slitkows.i...@gmail.com>" 
mailto:slitkows.i...@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, March 29, 2021 at 03:13
To: "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on April 12th 2021.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto/

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
--

[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com<mailto:gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>

M 301 502-1347

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

As co-author I support adoption.
I am aware of an IPR which is in process of being disclosed.

That is yet another important draft.
There are implementations of that draft and customers are already using them.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 

Date: Monday, March 29, 2021 at 03:13
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on April 12th 2021.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto/

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] About draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Wei,

On my side, I don’t understand the problem statement.
Would it be possible to clarify that aspect? The draft seems to provide a 
solution but there is no explicit text about the what you are trying to solve.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of Wei Wang 
Date: Friday, March 12, 2021 at 03:14
To: "linda.dunbar" , "jorge.rabadan" 

Cc: bess 
Subject: [bess] About draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn

Hi Linda and Jorge,
Thanks for your comments at IETF110 meeting, and I think I need to explain 
our considerations for the newly defined LSI (Logical Session Identifier) 
concept.

Question 1, from Linda Dunbar, "Is the usage of LSI same as the RD for VPN 
route distinguish?"
Answer: LSI(Logical Session Identifier) is mainly used for distinguishing the 
different logical sessions between CE and PE device. Such session can be 
established via Vxlan, IPsec, or other tunnel technologies that can span layer 
3 network.
The LSI information should be transferred via the control plane and forwarding 
plane. In control plane, we try to use Ethernet Tag ID/newly defined ESI type 
to transfer, its purpose is to further distinguish the cusomer routes within 
one provider VRF. In forwarding plane, this information should be inserted into 
some place of the exising VxLAN encoding, as proposed in our 
draft:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn-04#section-6.1

Question 2, from Jorge Rabadan. "The ESI shouldn't be used to distinguish the 
route-type 5, it is mainly used for multi-homing purpose"
Answer: Currently, we are considering using two methods to identify the routes 
that associated different LSI:
   Method 1: Ethernet Tag ID, which is similar with its usage in layer 2 
vlan environment.
   Method 2: Newly defined ESI type(type 6)

We think both methods are approachable:
Method 1 requires also the update of 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11(Ethernet
 Tag ID is set to 0 for route type 5), may arises some confuse with its 
original defintion.
Method 2 requires the extension of ESI type (as described in: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn-04#section-6.2).
 The original purpose of ESI (mulit-homing) can also be preserved.

I hope the above explanations help.
Comments and questions are always welcome.

Best Regards,
Wei
China Telecom
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Support this important work. I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems

http://e-vpn.io
http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 

Date: Monday, November 30, 2020 at 12:15
To: "draft-ietf-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05

This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-05 [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as a standards track RFC.

This poll runs until Monday 14th December 2020.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.
There is currently one IPR disclosure.

In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per 
the BESS policy in [2].

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IP poll for draft-wsv-bess-extended-evpn-optimized-ir

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Stephane,

Due to the limited number of replies, can you quantify the importance of this 
draft?
It is only v01.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing / 
EVPN

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 

Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 21:18
To: 'BESS' , 
"draft-wsv-bess-extended-evpn-optimized...@ietf.org" 

Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption and IP poll for 
draft-wsv-bess-extended-evpn-optimized-ir

Hi,

Despite the limited number of replies, we have seen enough support and no 
objection to progress further.
The document is adopted as a WG document.

Authors,

Please republish the doc using -ietf-.


Thanks,

Stephane


From: slitkows.i...@gmail.com 
Sent: mardi 4 février 2020 05:50
To: 'BESS' ; draft-wsv-bess-extended-evpn-optimized...@ietf.org
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: WG adoption and IP poll for draft-wsv-bess-extended-evpn-optimized-ir

Hi,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-wsv-bess-extended-evpn-optimized-ir [1]
Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on 18th Feb 2020.

Regards,
Stephane and Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wsv-bess-extended-evpn-optimized-ir/
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa-04

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Matthew,

As author of that draft, I’m supportive. It solves very nicely true customer 
problems.
The solution is already deployed in multiple customer environments
I’m not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing / 
EVPN

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 09:47
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 

Subject: WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa-04
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: Patrice Brissette , Ali Sajassi 
, , 
, 
Resent-Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 09:48

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa-04 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Tuesday 4th February 2020.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-bess-evpn-mh-pa/





___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

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

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

I support.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing / 
EVPN

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" 

Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 10:46
To: "bess@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref...@ietf.org" 

Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df

Hello WG,

This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-04 [1].

This poll runs until * the 5th Of November *.


We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.

There is currently no IPR disclosed.



If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.



We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].



Thank you,

Stephane & Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

This is my last email on this… looks like the message doesn’t go thru …maybe 
there is a loop somewhere.

This informal draft is like a suggestion … It is about an action output of a 
well document procedure in RFC7432.
A suggestion may be vendor specific or not. There is nothing for vendors to 
interop with.

The fact that I’m seeing MUST in the draft and the fact it has been pushed to 
EANTC, it looks to me that it is not just a suggestion.
There is kind of hidden agenda there.
I simply disagree with that. I don’t want customer to ask me if we support your 
vendor specific solution.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> / 
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:55
To: Patrice Brissette , Stephane Litkowski 
, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

:-)

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 View)" , 
Stephane Litkowski , "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

Jorge,

If that is the case…since it looks like you were able to push the blackhole MAC 
at EANTC (not sure what magic you have done to get privilege), why is your 
draft informal?
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> / 
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 09:20
To: Patrice Brissette , Stephane Litkowski 
, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

Hi Patrice,

Having a common way to solve loops is beneficial for the community. And if 
there are better ways, we should discuss them and maybe modify the document.

An informational draft that explains how some vendors solve this, I think, is 
relevant to the WG.
There is a public report where 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 View)" , 
Stephane Litkowski , "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

Hi,

It is difficult to argue against an informal draft since it does not provides 
any obligation to any vendor to do it. There are many ways for fixing loop and 
I do not see why it needs to be common to all vendor.

That said, a paragraph in RFC7432bis reminding people about the problem is a 
good thing.

Having a separate draft (especially informal) allows customers to request 
compliancy with…. Which I disagree.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> / 
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 03:13
To: Patrice Brissette , Stephane Litkowski 
, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

Hi Patrice,

Thank

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Jorge,

If that is the case…since it looks like you were able to push the blackhole MAC 
at EANTC (not sure what magic you have done to get privilege), why is your 
draft informal?
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> / 
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 09:20
To: Patrice Brissette , Stephane Litkowski 
, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

Hi Patrice,

Having a common way to solve loops is beneficial for the community. And if 
there are better ways, we should discuss them and maybe modify the document.

An informational draft that explains how some vendors solve this, I think, is 
relevant to the WG.
There is a public report where 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 View)" , 
Stephane Litkowski , "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

Hi,

It is difficult to argue against an informal draft since it does not provides 
any obligation to any vendor to do it. There are many ways for fixing loop and 
I do not see why it needs to be common to all vendor.

That said, a paragraph in RFC7432bis reminding people about the problem is a 
good thing.

Having a separate draft (especially informal) allows customers to request 
compliancy with…. Which I disagree.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> / 
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 03:13
To: Patrice Brissette , Stephane Litkowski 
, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

Hi Patrice,

Thanks for explaining.

So I think you agree with the goal behind the draft, and the fact that has to 
be specified somewhere since you suggest rfc7432bis.
What you are arguing is whether it has to be in an already published document, 
or a yet-to-be-published document. Sure, that should be decided by WG rough 
consensus and chairs.

Some other points to your comments:

-It is informational because it does not change any control plane element 
in RFC7432.

-It explains the whole mac duplication process for the benefit of the reader

-The use of Normative language can be certainly discussed

-Loops are important and we think EVPN specs are not complete without 
addressing them. They can be resolved in different ways. This is an approach 
that tries to have a uniform behavior across implementations. That’s why we 
thought a draft was needed, 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" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

Hi Jorge,


As I mentioned, the draft is actually pretty thin as stated in section 4.2: 
This document enhances the EVPN MAC Duplication Mechanism by extending it with 
an optional Loop-protection action that is applied on the duplicate-MAC 
addresses.

The document describes at glance the problem. I agree that the problem is real 
and must be fixed.
However, the extension is simply an action on the MAC duplication mechanism to 
install a blackhole MAC as an option.
I’m not sure why there is a need for a draft. The action can be vendor 
spe

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

It is difficult to argue against an informal draft since it does not provides 
any obligation to any vendor to do it. There are many ways for fixing loop and 
I do not see why it needs to be common to all vendor.

That said, a paragraph in RFC7432bis reminding people about the problem is a 
good thing.

Having a separate draft (especially informal) allows customers to request 
compliancy with…. Which I disagree.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> / 
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 03:13
To: Patrice Brissette , Stephane Litkowski 
, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

Hi Patrice,

Thanks for explaining.

So I think you agree with the goal behind the draft, and the fact that has to 
be specified somewhere since you suggest rfc7432bis.
What you are arguing is whether it has to be in an already published document, 
or a yet-to-be-published document. Sure, that should be decided by WG rough 
consensus and chairs.

Some other points to your comments:

-It is informational because it does not change any control plane element 
in RFC7432.

-It explains the whole mac duplication process for the benefit of the reader

-The use of Normative language can be certainly discussed

-Loops are important and we think EVPN specs are not complete without 
addressing them. They can be resolved in different ways. This is an approach 
that tries to have a uniform behavior across implementations. That’s why we 
thought a draft was needed, 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" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

Hi Jorge,


As I mentioned, the draft is actually pretty thin as stated in section 4.2: 
This document enhances the EVPN MAC Duplication Mechanism by extending it with 
an optional Loop-protection action that is applied on the duplicate-MAC 
addresses.

The document describes at glance the problem. I agree that the problem is real 
and must be fixed.
However, the extension is simply an action on the MAC duplication mechanism to 
install a blackhole MAC as an option.
I’m not sure why there is a need for a draft. The action can be vendor 
specific. The fact that the draft is informal makes more sense. However, there 
is a requirement section with *MUST* keywords…. I’m confuse about this…since it 
is informal.

IMO, I would rather add a text to RFC7432bis to suggest what can be done. That 
will highlight the importance of such problem.

Having too many draft dilute the strength of our work.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> / 
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 08:37
To: Patrice Brissette , Stephane Litkowski 
, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

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 think that it does 
not deserves its own document

-Or maybe none of them? :-)

I think it is important to clarify that on the list.

Thank you.
Jorge


From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" 
Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:25 PM
To: Stephane Litkowski , 
"stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 
Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bes

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Jorge,


As I mentioned, the draft is actually pretty thin as stated in section 4.2: 
This document enhances the EVPN MAC Duplication Mechanism by extending it with 
an optional Loop-protection action that is applied on the duplicate-MAC 
addresses.

The document describes at glance the problem. I agree that the problem is real 
and must be fixed.
However, the extension is simply an action on the MAC duplication mechanism to 
install a blackhole MAC as an option.
I’m not sure why there is a need for a draft. The action can be vendor 
specific. The fact that the draft is informal makes more sense. However, there 
is a requirement section with *MUST* keywords…. I’m confuse about this…since it 
is informal.

IMO, I would rather add a text to RFC7432bis to suggest what can be done. That 
will highlight the importance of such problem.

Having too many draft dilute the strength of our work.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> / 
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 08:37
To: Patrice Brissette , Stephane Litkowski 
, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

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 think that it does 
not deserves its own document

-Or maybe none of them? :-)

I think it is important to clarify that on the list.

Thank you.
Jorge


From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" 
Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:25 PM
To: Stephane Litkowski , 
"stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 
Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: , , 
, , 

Resent-Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:24 PM

Hi,

I do not support that draft. I think it is a very tiny minor update which can 
incorporated in RFC7432bis.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> / 
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of Stephane Litkowski 

Date: Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 05:05
To: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 
Cc: "draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-prot...@ietf.org" 
, "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect

Hi,

The poll has ended.
I haven't seen a lot of support from the various vendor while Jorge has 
mentioned that there are multiple implementations. Before closing definitely 
this poll, I would like to let the opportunity to other vendors to raise their 
voice and support the draft especially if they have implementations.
I will let an additional week.

Stephane


On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:29 PM 
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>> wrote:
Hi,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect-04 [1]
Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on 16th September 2019.

Regards,
Stephane and Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect/




[Orange logo]<http://www.orange.com/>

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

As co-author, I support this draft.
I’m not aware of any other IPR.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing / 
EVPN

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 06:59
To: "draft-dawra-bess-srv6-servi...@ietf.org" 
, "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: , , Patrice Brissette 
, , , 
, , , 
, , 
, 
Resent-Date: Friday, September 27, 2019 at 07:00

Hello,

This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services-02 [1] .

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Friday 11th October 2019.

Regards,
Matthew and Stephane

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dawra-bess-srv6-services/


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

I support this important piece of work.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing / 
EVPN

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Monday, June 17, 2019 at 04:53
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 Working Group,



This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on  
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy [1].



This poll runs until *the 28th of June*.



We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.



We have several IPRs already disclosed.



If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.



We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].



Thank you,

Stephane & Matthew


[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw



[Orange logo]

Stephane Litkowski
Network Architect
Orange/SCE/EQUANT/OINIS/NET
Orange Expert Future Networks
phone: +33 2 23 06 49 83 

  NEW !
mobile: +33 6 71 63 27 50 

  NEW !
stephane.litkow...@orange.com


_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Guys,

Thanks a lot for your comments. We will have a sit down in Prague to discuss 
them.
Ping me if you will be around.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing / 
EVPN

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: Alexander Vainshtein 
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 04:05
To: Yu Tianpeng 
Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-y...@ietf.org" , 
"bess@ietf.org" , Michael Gorokhovsky 
, Yechiel Rosengarten 
, Ron Sdayoor 
Subject: RE: A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: Patrice Brissette , , 
, , 
Resent-Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 04:05

Tim,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
I have indeed missed the ingress-replication  and p2mp-replication leaves at 
the top of the EVPN YANG tree. But I do not see how it helps to answer my 
original questions (in addition to being misplaced as you have noticed).

Seems we are in sync with regard to this issue.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

From: Yu Tianpeng 
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 9:52 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein 
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-y...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; Michael Gorokhovsky 
; Yechiel Rosengarten 
; Ron Sdayoor 
Subject: Re: A short question on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07

Hi Sasha,
If you read the beginning of even yang, it has a common leaf which indicating 
it is IR or P2MP. But it is globally not per EVI.
So actually I also have a comment here I may forgot to mention in previous 
email is that this common leaf should be per EVI basis not globally.
If this info should be included in route leaf, the common leaf actually can be 
deleted I believe.
So basically I support what you said.

Hi author,
Thanks for the new version which fixes  a lot.
But I still have some concerns on the current version.
I will try put major ones down later.

Here just quick query on the usage of counter32 in statistics, isn't it very 
likely to get full in short time?  If you check interface-yang it always use 
counter64. If I calculate correctly, with 1mbps traffic counter32 will rotate 
in about 1 hour. Or I miss sth?

Thanks in advance.
Regards
Tim


On Wed, 13 Mar 2019, 06:47 Alexander Vainshtein, 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>> 
wrote:
Hi all,
I am now reading the draft, and I see that it is a substantial improvement over 
the earlier versions.

At the same time I have a question regarding the definition of Type 3 
(Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag) EVPN route in this (and previous) versions.

The YANG definition of this route  runs as following:

 list inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route {
   uses route-rd-rt-grp;
   leaf originator-ip-prefix {
 type inet:ip-prefix;
 description "originator-ip-prefix";
   }
   list path {
 uses next-hop-label-grp;
 uses path-detail-grp;
 description "path";
   }
   description "inclusive-multicast-ethernet-tag-route";


This definition matches the definition of the NRLI of this route in Section 7.3 
of RFC 7432. But it seems to miss the requirement (stated in Section 11.2 of 
RFC 7432) that this route MUST carry an PMSI Tunnel Type Attribute (a.k.a. PTA) 
as defined in RFC 6514.

The draft also defines a Boolean attribute underlay-multicast of an EVPN 
instance, but it does not explain what this means and how it is used. My guess 
)FWIW) is that this attribute differentiates between EVPN instances that use 
ingress replication and EVPN instances that use P2MP LSPs to deliver BUM 
traffic. But it does not help to identify specific  technology used for setting 
up P2MP LSPs, and does not allow the user to see the labels advertised in the 
PTA.

Did I miss something substantial here?

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   
alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

-Original Message-
From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of 
internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 9:21 PM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-07.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.

Title   : Yang Data Model for EVPN
Authors : Patrice Brissette
  Himanshu Shah
  Iftekar Hussain
  Kishore Tiruveedhula
  

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

As Jorge mentioned, this is a super important doc. I support it for sure.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing / 
EVPN

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - 
US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 10:11
To: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" , 
"bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment

It’s an important document. I support its publication as coauthor. Not aware of 
any IPR. Nokia has an implementation for a while now.
Thanks,
Jorge



From: BESS  on behalf of stephane.litkow...@orange.com
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 14:43
To: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment


Hello Working Group,



This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment [1]



This poll runs until *the 17th of December*.



We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.



There is currently no IPR disclosed.



If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.



We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].



Thank you,

Stephane & Matthew



[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment/



[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw



_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Folks,

I’m not aware of any other IPR which was already disclosed.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing / 
EVPN

http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn




From: BESS  on behalf of Ali Sajassi 
Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 14:52
To: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" , 
"bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment

Hi Stephane,

It seems like the IPR that I was talking about has already been disclosed in 
April of this year. The disclosure is on 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03.
 Since the history of its WG draft version doesn’t show the individual draft 
revisions, the IPR doesn’t appear for WG draft version. Can you fix it so that 
the history of the individual drafts appear on the WG draft history?

Regards,
Ali

From: BESS  on behalf of Cisco Employee 

Date: Monday, December 3, 2018 at 10:29 PM
To: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" , 
"bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment



There is one IPR related to this draft that I thought it was disclosed but it 
wasn’t. I put request  for it to be disclosed ASAP. The term for it is the same 
as any other Cisco IPR disclosure.
Regarding implementation, this draft has been implemented in Cisco products for 
quite some time.

Regards,
Ali

From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:43 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment


Hello Working Group,



This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment [1]



This poll runs until *the 17th of December*.



We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.



There is currently no IPR disclosed.



If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.



We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].



Thank you,

Stephane & Matthew



[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment/



[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw



_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] About draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-03

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Jorge,

Please see my comments below ... 

Regards,
 
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment Routing 
 / EVPN 

 
 

On 2018-11-05, 4:44 PM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
 wrote:

Dear authors,

Some comments about this draft:

1- the draft uses some 'non-standard' terminology. Could you use RFC7432 
terminology please? An example of 'non-standard' term is EVLAG.
 Will do

2- the draft proposes a solution for something that works today without the 
need of a multi-homed Ethernet Segment or any new procedures:
- There are already EVPN deployments that use STP/G.8032 access rings.
- The two EVPN PEs that close the ring can participate of the ring 
protocol, therefore the received mac flush messages will withdraw the required 
MAC/IP routes. 
- Since the remote PEs will forward normally based on their MAC FIB 
(populated by MAC/IP routes), there is no need to specify a new "Single Flow 
Active" forwarding mode. This is normal MAC based forwarding. Why do we need to 
create a new mode?? Can you please explain?
- Besides, by adding a bit in the ESI-label ext community different than 
the single-active bit, you make the solution non-backwards compatible.

 I'm not sure why you are mentioning the draft is NOT backward 
compatible. You need to explain that one. May I should add "remote PE not 
support single-flow-active bit may ignore this mode"
 It is true you can support ring using single-homed and you are 
welcome to do so. However, there are important drawbacks. For example, how do 
you achieve ARP and MAC sync?


3- Section 6 - why do you define yet another extended community for mac 
flush, when we already have one? (RFC7623)

 It is true that we can reuse the MAC mobility from RFC7623. Note taken

4- there is some value in the proposal though - the mass withdrawal (per-BD 
or per-ES) as opposed to per-MAC withdrawal may speed up convergence. Here is 
an alternative solution that can achieve the same thing and it's backwards 
compatible with RFC7432:

On the L2GWs:
a) Define a single-homed non-zero ESI per L2GW PW. The ESI can be 
auto-derived easily as type 3/4 and be made unique in the network.
b) Since the ES is defined in a single PE, the ES routes will be filtered 
by the RR (use RTC) and won't ever reach other PEs. Alternatively you can 
disable the ES routes.
c) This L2GW ES will be single-active mode (although it does not matter 
much).
d) Since the ES is not shared across the L2GWs, each L2GW will always be DF 
for all the local VLANs. 
e) Each L2GW will send AD per-ES and per-EVI routes for its ESI.
f) When the L2GW receives a mac-flush notification (STP TCN, G.8032 
mac-flush, TLDP MAC withdrawal etc.), the L2GW sends an update of the AD 
per-EVI route with the MAC Mobility extended community and a higher sequence 
number - note that we borrow this well-known mac flush procedure from RFC7623, 
only for AD per-EVI routes.

 As we demonstrated yesterday, there many cases where single-active or 
all-active are simply not working. Relying on single-homed is not sufficient 
even with an ESI. I already gave the example of ARP/MAC sync. 


On the remote PEs:
g) The MACs will be learned against the ESIs, but there will only be one 
next-hop per ES. No aliasing or no backup. And RFC7432-compatible.
h) Upon receiving an AD per-EVI update with a higher SEQ number, the PE 
flushes all the MACs for the BD. If the PE does not understand the MAC Mobility 
ext comm in the AD per-EVI route, it won't do anything and will simply flush 
MACs based on MAC/IP route withdrawals.
i) Upon receiving an AD per-ES route withdrawal the PE will do mass 
withdrawal for all the affected BDs (this is the case where the L2GW local ES 
goes down).

 I think you are considering only failure visible by PE only.

Please let me know your comments.

Thank you.
Jorge






___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Questions about the EVPN YANG data model draft

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Alex,

I just refresh the draft. Unfortunately, I just notice your email. I will make 
sure it is properly handle.

Regards,

Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these 
forms: Segment 
Routing / 
EVPN



From: Alexander Vainshtein 
Date: Sunday, October 21, 2018 at 7:00 AM
To: Patrice Brissette , "hs...@ciena.com" 
, "jorge.raba...@nokia.com" , 
"ing-wher_c...@jabil.com" , "ihuss...@infinera.com" 
, "kisho...@juniper.net" 
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Questions about the EVPN YANG data model draft

Dear Editors of the EVPN YANG data model 
draft,
I have several questions regarding the draft, and would highly appreciated your 
responses.


1.   The -05 version of the draft has expired almost two months ago. Do you 
plan to refresh it any time soon?

2.   The draft consistently uses type uint32 for the Ethernet segment 
identifier (ESI), while RFC 7432 explicitly defines it as a 10-octet integer. 
Is this just a typo, or did I miss something substantial here?

3.   The draft states that it covers Integrated Routing and Bridging in 
EVPN, but I could not find any traces of such coverage. Did I miss something, 
or is just a forward declaration for the future version of the draft?

4.   RFC 7432 states that “When a customer site is connected to one or more 
PEs via a set of Ethernet links, then this set of Ethernet links constitutes an 
Ethernet segment". The Virtual Ethernet Segment 
draft 
expands this definition and, so that virtual Ethernet Segments can be comprised 
of:

· Ethernet Virtual Circuits aggregated on an ENNI physical ports

· Ethernet PWs or even MPLS LSPs.
Can you please clarify the following:

a.   How does the proposed YANG data model differentiate between physical 
and virtual Ethernet Segments?

b.   Does this data model cover the scenario where the virtual Ethernet 
segments are represented by EVCs?

5.   RFC 7432 includes recommendations for usage (or non-usage) of the 
Control Word in the EVPN encapsulation, and RFC 8214 (which is claimed to be 
covered by this draft) provides a control plane mechanism for exchanging the CW 
usage information. Can you please clarify whether the draft cover usage of the 
CW in the EVPN encapsulations?
Your feedback will be highly appreciated.

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com


___

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information 
which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received 
this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then 
delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

I support the WG adoption of draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette
From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 9:38 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election

Hi WG,

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption of 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election-01 [1]

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Wed 22th Aug.

Regards,
Stéphane and Matthew

[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election/




_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] new WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-05

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

I definitely support this initiative.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette
From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 10:03 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] new WGLC for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-05


Hello working group,



This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-05 [1].



A significant amount of update has been introduced since the previous WGLC. 
Please review the updates and provide your feedback.



This poll runs until *the 22th of August*.





Thank you



Stéphane, Matthew

bess chairs



[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding/



_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

I support the adoption. I’m aware of IPR.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette
From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
"Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>
Date: Friday, June 1, 2018 at 5:48 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc: 
"draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org"
 
mailto:draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03

We’ve only had a couple of responses from people who are not co-authors of the 
draft. It would be good to see some wider interest, so please review the draft 
and indicate to the list if you support adoption or not, especially if you are 
not a co-author. I will extend the poll for adoption for another week, 
accordingly.

Thanks to those who have already commented.

Regards

Matthew and Stephane

From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
"Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>
Date: Thursday, 17 May 2018 at 11:24
To: "bess@ietf.org" mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc: 
"draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org"
 
mailto:draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org>>
Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03

This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Thursday 31st May 2018.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

As co-author, I support.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette
From: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" 
Date: Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 6:24 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Cc: "draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org" 

Subject: WG Adoption and IPR Poll for 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03
Resent-From: 
Resent-To: Ali Sajassi , Patrice Brissette 
, , , 

Resent-Date: Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 6:24 AM

This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment-03.txt

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently there is one IPR declaration against this document.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

This poll for adoption closes on Thursday 31st May 2018.

Regards,
Matthew and Stéphane

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-02

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Support. I’m not aware of any IPR that hasn’t been disclosed.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette
From: BESS  on behalf of Ali Sajassi 
Date: Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:25 PM
To: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" , 
"bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-02

As a co-author, I support WG adoption of this document. I am not aware of any 
IPR that hasn’t already been disclosed but I will double check with other 
co-authors.

Regards,
Ali

From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Monday, May 14, 2018 at 2:48 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-02

Hi WG,

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption of 
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery-02 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly respond 
only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance 
with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Monday 28th May.

Regards,
Stéphane and Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery/



[Orange logo]

Stephane Litkowski
Network Architect
Orange/SCE/EQUANT/OINIS/NET
Orange Expert Future Networks
phone: +33 2 23 06 49 83 

  NEW !
mobile: +33 6 71 63 27 50 

  NEW !
stephane.litkow...@orange.com


_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WGLC on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi,

I fully support this draft.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette
From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 at 4:21 PM
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WGLC on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework


Hello working group,



This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-00 [1]



This poll runs until *the 9th of April*.



We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please respond 
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the 
Authors and Contributors.



Currently no IPR has been disclosed against this Document.



If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.



We are also polling for any existing implementation.



Thank you



Matthew, Stéphane

bess chairs



[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework/



_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Slots requests for BESS WG session - IETF 101 - London

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Stephane,

I have 2 preso. EVPN Yang and EVPN port-active.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette
From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 9:42 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] Slots requests for BESS WG session - IETF 101 - London


All,



it is time we start building the BESS WG agenda for London.

The IETF agenda (still preliminary) is available at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/agenda.html



The BESS WG session (2h30) is scheduled on Tuesday, March 20th, 2018 / 
Afternoon session II / 15:50-18:20 (local time)



Please send us your request for a presentation slot, indicating draft name, 
speaker, and desired duration (covering presentation and discussion).



Thank you



Stephane & Matthew


_



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] New bess Co-Chair

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Thanks Thomas for your good work and Welcome Stephane to our jungle ;)

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

From: BESS  on behalf of "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - 
US/Mountain View)" 
Date: Friday, December 1, 2017 at 2:27 PM
To: Tony Przygienda , Alvaro Retana 

Cc: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [bess] New bess Co-Chair

+1

Welcome Stephane!
And Thomas, thank you very much for all your hard work. You’ve been crucial for 
all the work in this WG.


On 12/1/17, 8:27 AM, "BESS on behalf of Tony Przygienda" 
 on behalf of 
tonysi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ack, welcome, great to have more and more operators getting involved in the 
sausage definition. This leads often to early discussions and better 
appreciation of the challenges of ultimately pouring the resulting tapestry of 
RFCs into bits and silicon ;-)
--- tony

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Alvaro Retana 
> wrote:
Dear bess WG:

I am sad to report that Thomas Morin has decided not to continue as bess 
Co-Chair due to the demands of his job.  Thomas: thank you for all the effort 
you have put into the WG, we all look forward to your continued contributions 
to the IETF!

In consultation with Martin and the other ADs, we have asked Stephane Litkowski 
to take on the role of bess Co-Chair.  As most of you know, Stephane works at 
Orange Business Services, has been involved in the IETF for several years and 
had made significant contributions in a number of WGs in and out of the Routing 
Area.  Welcome Stephane!

Stephane can be reached at 
stephane.litkow...@orange.com.

This change is effective immediately.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Slots requests for BESS WG session - IETF 99 - Prague

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Martin.

EVPN / L2VPN Yang (10 min for both)

Thanks

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

On 2017-06-21, 4:33 AM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" 
 wrote:

All,

it is time we start building the BESS WG agenda for Prague.
The IETF agenda (still preliminary) is available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/agenda.html

The BESS WG session (2h) is scheduled on
Thursday, July 20, 2017 / Afternoon session II / 15:50-17:50 (local time)

Please send us your request for a presentation slot, indicating
draft name, speaker, and desired duration (covering presentation and
discussion).

Please send the requests no later than the 5th of July.
Thank you

M

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Support!

Regards,
Patrice Brissette


On 6/12/17, 9:27 AM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" 
 wrote:

>Hello Working Group,
>
>This email starts a Working Group Last Call on 
>draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-02 [1] which is considered mature and ready 
>for a final working group review.
>
>¤ Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent
>version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than
>*26th of June*.
>Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it is 
>also a call for support (or not) to publish this document as a Proposed 
>Standard RFC.
>
>¤ *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that 
>applies to draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp, to ensure that IPR has been 
>disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 
>and 5378 for more details).
>
>If you are listed as a document Author or Contributor of
>draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-02 please respond to this email and indicate 
>whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
>
>Note that, as of today, no IPR has been disclosed against this document 
>or its earlier versions.
>
>¤ We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of 
>what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. 
>Please inform the mailing list, or the chairs, or only one of the chairs.
>
>
>Thank you,
>M
>
>[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp/
>[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw
>
>___
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Call for adoption: draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-pref-df

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Support!

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

On 2017-06-06, 9:44 AM, "BESS on behalf of thomas.mo...@orange.com" 
 wrote:

Hello working group,

This email starts a two-week call for adoption on
draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-pref-df-02 [1] as a Working Group Document.

Please state on the list if you support the adoption or not (in both 
cases, please also state the reasons).

This poll runs until *the 20th of June*.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to 
this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with 
IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

If you are listed as an Author or Contributor of this Document please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any 
relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers 
from all the Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or Contributor, then please 
explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet 
been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you,

Martin & Thomas
bess chairs

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-pref-df/


_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu 
ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and 
delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Slots requests for BESS WG session - IETF 98 - Chicago

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Martin.

I need a slot for Yang related model L2VPN + EVPN
10 min. 

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

On 2017-03-14, 2:03 AM, "BESS on behalf of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" 
 wrote:

 
On 3/6/17, 3:14 AM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"
 wrote:

>All,
>
>it is time we start building the BESS WG agenda for Chicago.
>The IETF agenda is available at:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/98/agenda.html
>
>The BESS WG session (2h) is scheduled on
>Monday, March 27, 2017 / Morning session I / 9:00-11:30 (local time)
>
>Please send us your request for a presentation slot, indicating
>draft name, speaker and desired duration (covering presentation and
>discussion)
>
>Please send the requests no later than the 14th of March.
>Thank you
>
>M
>
>___
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Himanshu,

I don’t think we should make the Eth-tag a MUST be 24 bit. It should be MAY  
but if you decide to use 24 bits, it MUST be right aligned.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

On 2017-02-21, 2:51 PM, "Shah, Himanshu" <hs...@ciena.com> wrote:

‘MAY’ does not work. 
It has to be ‘MUST’, IMO. 

Thanks,
Himanshu

On 2/21/17, 2:22 PM, "BESS on behalf of Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" 
<bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of pbris...@cisco.com> wrote:

Folks,

Why don’t we simply mention that the Eth–Tag is a 32 bit value and MAY 
be set to a 24 bits instance
When 24 bits value is used is MAY be right aligned.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

On 2017-02-21, 2:18 PM, "BESS on behalf of Sami Boutros" 
<bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of sbout...@vmware.com> wrote:

Hi John,

I can add that the value is from 0 to 0x00ff, will that work?


Thanks,

Sami
On 2/21/17, 10:56 AM, "John E Drake" <jdr...@juniper.net> wrote:

>Sami,
>
>Snipped, comment inline
>
>Yours Irrespectively,
>
>John
>
>> >
>> >> Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to the 24-bit VPWS 
service instance
>> identifier value."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Ok, but you still didn’t mention how the 24-bit value is to be 
aligned in the 32-
>> bit field.  I’m guessing there will be some 0-padding, but will 
that the at the
>> beginning or the end?
>> >
>> 
>> I made the VPWS service instance identifier a 32-bit value in 
the new draft.
>> 
>
>[JD]   I don't think you can do this as there are multiple 
implementations that use 24 bits  
>
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess




___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

I support.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

On 2017-02-13, 5:07 PM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" 
 wrote:

Hello Working Group,

This email starts a Working Group Last Call on 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 [1] which is considered 
mature and ready for a final working group review.
Note that this call is longer than usual because we are pushing two 
correlated documents together.

Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent
version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than
*5th of March*.
Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it is 
also a call for support (or not) to publish this document as a Proposed 
Standard RFC.

*Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that 
applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement, to ensure that IPR 
has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 
4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).

*If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 please respond to this 
email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.

Note that, as of today, no IPR has been disclosed against this document 
or its earlier versions.

We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of 
what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. 
Please inform the mailing list, or the chairs, or only one of the chairs.

Thank you,
M

[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Folks,

Same here. Can we do something about it?  And agree, all 3 VPN models should 
have the same commonality.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.i...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:43 PM
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com>, Giles Heron <giles.he...@gmail.com>
Cc: Patrice Brissette <pbris...@cisco.com>, "Shah, Himanshu" <hs...@ciena.com>, 
"bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhj...@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

I’d prefer common grouping in draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types and references 
from any other model using it


Cheers,
Jeff


From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
<a...@cisco.com>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 08:42
To: Giles Heron <giles.he...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbris...@cisco.com>, "Shah, Himanshu" 
<hs...@ciena.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" 
<dhj...@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

Hi Giles,
I will add the route-target-type type (enum of import, export, both) but for a 
general grouping, it appears there are some discrepancies between the 3 models. 
Assuming the types: route-discriminator, route-target, and route-target-type, 
can you provide a consensus grouping that all the models would use?
Thanks,
Acee

From: Giles Heron <giles.he...@gmail.com<mailto:giles.he...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 11:18 AM
To: Acee Lindem <a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" 
<pbris...@cisco.com<mailto:pbris...@cisco.com>>, 
"bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, 
Himanshu Shah <hs...@ciena.com<mailto:hs...@ciena.com>>, "Dhanendra Jain 
(dhjain)" <dhj...@cisco.com<mailto:dhj...@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

Hi Acee,

In general seems that for any BGP VPN (L2 or L3) you have an RD plus a list of 
RTs (which can be import, export or both) - so I’d prefer that to be defined in 
a shared grouping (more or less as per the structure Patrice gave below) than 
to force each model to redefine it.

Giles

On 10 Feb 2017, at 14:51, Acee Lindem (acee) 
<a...@cisco.com<mailto:a...@cisco.com>> wrote:

Hi Patrice – we are working fervently on a common IETF routing types model. We 
have both route-target and router-distinguisher types defined there. The work 
is being done in the Routing WG. Our intension is to accelerate standardization 
so it doesn’t hold up standardization of the importing modules. Please comment 
as to whether you think this meets BESS requirements.

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-00.txt

Thanks,
Acee
P.S. We plan an update next week but the RD and RT definitions have not changed.



From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
"Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbris...@cisco.com<mailto:pbris...@cisco.com>>
Date: Friday, February 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc: "Dhanendra Jain (dhjain)" <dhj...@cisco.com<mailto:dhj...@cisco.com>>, 
Himanshu Shah <hs...@ciena.com<mailto:hs...@ciena.com>>
Subject: [bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

Folks,

As part of EVPN, L2VPn and L3VPN Yang model, there is a “module” common to all 
3 Yang models.

  | +--rw bgp-parameters
  | |  +--rw common
  | | +--rw rd-rt* [route-distinguisher]
  | |+--rw route-distinguisherstring
  | |+--rw vpn-target* [rt-value]
  | |   +--rw rt-valuestring
  | |   +--rw rt-type bgp-rt-type


It will be interesting to create a common BGP parameter Yang module as shown 
above. I think it just makes sense.
However, there is a minor challenge; that module require a home (a draft).
I’m looking for feedback about the best place/draft for such a module.

Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] BGP common parameter Yang module

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Folks,

As part of EVPN, L2VPn and L3VPN Yang model, there is a “module” common to all 
3 Yang models.

  | +--rw bgp-parameters
  | |  +--rw common
  | | +--rw rd-rt* [route-distinguisher]
  | |+--rw route-distinguisherstring
  | |+--rw vpn-target* [rt-value]
  | |   +--rw rt-valuestring
  | |   +--rw rt-type bgp-rt-type


It will be interesting to create a common BGP parameter Yang module as shown 
above. I think it just makes sense.
However, there is a minor challenge; that module require a home (a draft).
I’m looking for feedback about the best place/draft for such a module.

Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] The BESS WG has placed draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

I support.
That draft is quite well written and cover an important problem to solve,

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

On 2017-01-31, 9:58 AM, "BESS on behalf of IETF Secretariat" 
 wrote:


The BESS WG has placed draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy in state 
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Thomas Morin)

The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy/

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Slots requests for BESS WG session - IETF 97 - Seoul

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Martin,

Usual Yang update


Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette
TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING

pbris...@cisco.com
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE
Canada
Cisco.com 







On 2016-10-18, 4:28 AM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"
 wrote:

>All,
>
>it is time we start building the BESS WG agenda for Seoul.
>The IETF agenda is available at:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/97/agenda.html
>Please note that it is still a preliminary agenda.
>
>The BESS WG session (2h) is currently scheduled on
>Monday, 14th of November, Afternoon session I 13:30-15:30 (local time)
>
>Please send us your request for a presentation slot, indicating
>draft name, speaker and desired duration (covering presentation +
>discussion)
>
>Please send the requests no later than the 30th of October.
>Thank you
>
>M
>
>___
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Call for adoption: draft-dhjain-bess-bgp-l3vpn-yang-01

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Support and I don¹t know any IPR.


Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette
TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING

pbris...@cisco.com
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE
Canada
Cisco.com 







On 2016-08-16, 9:44 AM, "Jeff Haas"  wrote:

>I am not aware of any IPR on this draft.
>
>-- Jeff
>
>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 8:42 AM, Thomas Morin 
>>wrote:
>> 
>> Hello working group,
>> 
>> This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
>>draft-dhjain-bess-bgp-l3vpn-yang [1] as a working group item.
>> 
>> Please send comments to the list and state if you support adoption or
>>not (in the later case, please also state the reasons).
>> 
>> This poll runs until **August 30th**.
>> 
>> *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that
>>applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
>>compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for
>>more details).
>> 
>> ==> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor please
>>respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
>>relevant IPR.
>> 
>> The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from
>>each author and contributor.
>> 
>> If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please
>>explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet
>>been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Martin & Thomas
>> bess chairs
>> 
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhjain-bess-bgp-l3vpn-yang
>> 
>

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Slots requests for BESS WG session - IETF 96 - Berlin

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Thomas,

Total: 0+-(-(1<<3))+2 mins overall and I do appreciate your jokeŠ first
person who make me laugh this morning ;-)


Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette
TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING

pbris...@cisco.com
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE
Canada
Cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/global/CA/>







On 2016-06-20, 9:28 AM, "BESS on behalf of Thomas Morin"
<bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of thomas.mo...@orange.com> wrote:

>Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) :
>> Please set me for Yang again. !0 min for L2VPN, EVPN and L3VPN.
>
>Well, implicitly we already assume slots requests are about non-zero
>time duration *.  ;-)
>
>Typo joke aside, can you tell if you want 10 mins per draft, or if you
>plan to cover them all in one 10-minute slot ?
>
>-Thomas
>
>*: and we even accept slot requests for presentations of zero or
>negative time *after* the meeting is closed and people went back home
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2016-06-20, 4:10 AM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"
>> <bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of martin.vigour...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> it is time we start building the BESS WG agenda for Berlin.
>>> The IETF agenda is available at:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/96/agenda.html
>>> Please note that it is still a preliminary agenda.
>>>
>>> The BESS WG session (2h) is currently scheduled on
>>> Thursday, 21st of July, Afternoon session I 14:00-16:00 (local time)
>>>
>>> Please send us your request for a presentation slot, indicating
>>> draft name, speaker and desired duration (covering presentation +
>>> discussion)
>>>
>>> Please send the requests no later than the 7th of July.
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>> ___
>>> BESS mailing list
>>> BESS@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>> ___
>> BESS mailing list
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
>
>___
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Thank Adrian for your review.

IMO, the merging of both Yang model is not longer appropriate.
At the beginning, it wasn¹t clear how both models will coexist.
I think both model are orthogonal and having L2VPN referring to EVPN is
the right way.  
I will take out the comment related to ³future investigation².

Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette
TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING

pbris...@cisco.com
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE
Canada
Cisco.com 







On 2016-05-24, 8:56 AM, "BESS on behalf of Adrian Farrel"
 wrote:

>Thomas,
>
>I think I also don't object to the adoption of this I-D.
>
>In addition to the use of the term "service model" that I raised for
>draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang and that I think should lead to clarification
>of the
>purpose of the model described in this document, I have one question:
>
>The Abstract says "The merging of this model with L2 services model is for
>future investigation" and I assume this refers to
>draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang.
>Isn't now (i.e., the moment of adoption) a good time to try to make that
>decision so that work can progress smoothly once inside the WG?
>
>Cheers,
>Adrian
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin
>> Sent: 04 May 2016 15:18
>> To: bess@ietf.org
>> Cc: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-y...@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang
>> 
>> Hello working group,
>> 
>> This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
>> draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang [1] as a working group document.
>> 
>> Please state on the list if you support adoption or not (in both cases,
>> please also state the reasons).
>> 
>> This poll runs until *May 25th*.
>> 
>> This call runs in parallel with the adoption call on
>> draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang hence the extended period.
>> 
>> 
>> We are *coincidentally* also polling for knowledge of any other
>> IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed
>> in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669
>> and 5378 for more details).
>> 
>> ==> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor please
>> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
>> relevant IPR.
>> 
>> The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from
>> each author and contributor.
>> 
>> If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please
>> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet
>> been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> Martin & Thomas
>> bess chairs
>> 
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang
>> 
>> ___
>> BESS mailing list
>> BESS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
>___
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

I support this draft as a co-author and I am not aware of any relevant IPR.



Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette
TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING

pbris...@cisco.com
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE
Canada
Cisco.com 







On 2016-05-23, 1:31 PM, "Shah, Himanshu"  wrote:

>Including kamran raza..
>
>Thanks,
>Himanshu
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin
>Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 10:18 AM
>To: bess@ietf.org
>Cc: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-y...@tools.ietf.org
>Subject: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang
>
>Hello working group,
>
>This email starts a two-week poll on adopting draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang
>[1] as a working group document.
>
>Please state on the list if you support adoption or not (in both cases,
>please also state the reasons).
>
>This poll runs until *May 25th*.
>
>This call runs in parallel with the adoption call on
>draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang hence the extended period.
>
>
>We are *coincidentally* also polling for knowledge of any other
>IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed
>in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669
>and 5378 for more details).
>
>==> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor please
>respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
>relevant IPR.
>
>The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from
>each author and contributor.
>
>If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please
>explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet
>been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Martin & Thomas
>bess chairs
>
>[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang
>
>___
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

I support this draft as a co-author and I am not aware of any relevant IPR.



Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette
TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING

pbris...@cisco.com
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE
Canada
Cisco.com 







On 2016-05-23, 2:01 PM, "BESS on behalf of Tapraj Singh (tapsingh)"
 wrote:

>I support this draft as a co-author and I am not aware of any relevant
>IPR.
>
>
>
>Thanks
>Tapraj
>
>On 5/23/16, 7:57 AM, "BESS on behalf of Kishore Tiruveedhula"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I support this draft as a co-author and I am not aware of any relevant
>>IPR.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Kishore
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 5/10/16, 10:56 AM, "BESS on behalf of Xufeng Liu"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Support.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>- Xufeng
>>>
 -Original Message-
 From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin
 Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2016 10:18 AM
 To: bess@ietf.org
 Cc: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-y...@tools.ietf.org
 Subject: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang
 
 Hello working group,
 
 This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang [1]
 as a working group document.
 
 Please state on the list if you support adoption or not (in both
cases,
please also
 state the reasons).
 
 This poll runs until *May 25th*.
 
 This call runs in parallel with the adoption call on
draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang
 hence the extended period.
 
 
 We are *coincidentally* also polling for knowledge of any other
 IPR that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed
 in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669
 and 5378 for more details).
 
 ==> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor please
 respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
 relevant IPR.
 
 The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from
 each author and contributor.
 
 If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please
 explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet
 been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
 
 Thank you,
 
 Martin & Thomas
 bess chairs
 
 [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang
 
 ___
 BESS mailing list
 BESS@ietf.org
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>>
>>>___
>>>BESS mailing list
>>>BESS@ietf.org
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>
>>___
>>BESS mailing list
>>BESS@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
>___
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Slots requests for BESS WG session - IETF 95 - Buenos Aires

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Martin,

I need a slot for L2VPN, L3VPN and EVPN Yang models


Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette
TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING

pbris...@cisco.com
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE
Canada
Cisco.com 

 Think before you print.This
 email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
(or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender
by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Please click here 
 for
Company Registration Information.






On 2016-03-07, 7:18 AM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"
 wrote:

>All,
>
>it is time we start building the BESS WG agenda for Buenos Aires.
>The IETF agenda is available at:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/95/agenda.html
>Please note that it is still a preliminary agenda.
>
>The BESS WG session (2h) is currently scheduled on
>Thursday, 7th of April, Afternoon session I 14:00-16:00 (local time)
>
>Please send us your request for a presentation slot, indicating:
>draft name, speaker and desired duration (covering presentation +
>discussion)
>
>Please send the requests no later than the 20th of March
>Thank you
>
>M
>
>___
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Folks,

I¹m supporting this document. It does provide a right etree solution for
EVPN.


Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette
TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING

pbris...@cisco.com
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE
Canada
Cisco.com 

 Think before you print.This
 email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
(or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender
by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Please click here 
 for
Company Registration Information.



>>
>>On 1/19/16, 12:51 AM, "BESS on behalf of thomas.mo...@orange.com"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Hello Working Group,
>>>
>>>This email starts a Working Group Last Call on
>>>draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree [1] which is considered mature and ready for
>>>a final working group review.
>>>
>>>Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent version yet
>>>(-03), and send your comments to the list, no later than *February the
>>>2nd* (2016-02-02).
>>>
>>>This is not only a call for comments on the document, but also a call of
>>>support for its publication.
>>>
>>>*Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that
>>>applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree, to ensure that IPR has been
>>>disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669
>>>and 5378 for more details).
>>>
>>>*If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of
>>>draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree please respond to this email and indicate
>>>whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
>>>
>>>Thank you,
>>>
>>>Thomas/Martin
>>>
>>>[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree
>>>
>>>___
>>>BESS mailing list
>>>BESS@ietf.org
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>
>>___
>>BESS mailing list
>>BESS@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
>___
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Sync between l2vpn service models

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Rotem,

These models are fundamentally different.

draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang
 meant to be a generic L2 device model whereas 
draft-xie-l3sm-l2vpn-service-model-00
 models the service.
The service model call various device models to enable the defined service.

Regards,

Patrice

   
[http://www.cisco.com/web/europe/images/email/signature/est2014/logo_06.png?ct=1406640631632]

Patrice Brissette
TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING

pbris...@cisco.com
Phone: +1 613 254 3336


Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE
Canada
Cisco.com



[http://www.cisco.com/assets/swa/img/thinkbeforeyouprint.gif] Think before you 
print.

This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of 
the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others 
is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to 
receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete 
all copies of this message.

Please click 
here for 
Company Registration Information.




From: BESS > on behalf of 
Rotem Cohen >
Date: Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 10:02 AM
To: 
"draft-xie-l3sm-l2vpn-service-mo...@ietf.org"
 
>,
 
"draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-y...@ietf.org"
 
>
Cc: "l...@ietf.org" 
>, Alexander Vainshtein 
>, 
Hai Balas >, 
"bess@ietf.org" >
Subject: [bess] Sync between l2vpn service models

Dear authors of L2VPN service model drafts,

Can you clarify please the relation between 
draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang
 and 
draft-xie-l3sm-l2vpn-service-model-00?

There are fundamental differences between L2VPN and L3VPN services and it does 
not seem right to derive one model from the other. 
draft-xie-l3sm-l2vpn-service-model-00
 made the effort to explain these differences but if the starting point had not 
been the L3VPN service model then it would not be necessary to do so.
VPLS and VPWS are widely deployed in MPLS-TP networks which do not assume any 
IP routing/forwarding capabilities and therefore using L3VPN constructs to 
define L2VPN services is not natural for these applications.

Relating to the conclusion section, the structure of L2VPN service is quite 
clear and modelling it without relying on L3VPN should not be regarded as 
reinventing a new wheel.

Thanks & regards,

Rotem Cohen

PTS System Architecture Group Manager

T:

+972.3.926.8247

M:

+972.54.926.8247

E:

rotem.co...@ecitele.com



www.ecitele.com

[cid:image002.png@01D12DEC.53A52A40]



___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Slots requests for BESS WG session - IETF 93 - Prague

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Hi Martin.

The L2VPN Yang team would like to present the effort happening since last
IETF.
We will be presenting in both PALS and BESS WG.
Draft title will comes soon and we will provide a quick update of what is
going on.

I¹m requesting a extra 5 min to cover what is happening on the EVPN front.

Title: L2VPN Yang
Draft Title: TBD
Time: 15 min
Speakers: Patrice, Himanshu, Robin


Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette
TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING

pbris...@cisco.com
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE
Canada
Cisco.com http://www.cisco.com/global/CA/

 Think before you print.This
 email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
(or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender
by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Please click here 
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html for
Company Registration Information.






On 2015-06-22, 4:44 AM, Martin Vigoureux
martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:

All,

it is time we start building the BESS WG agenda for Prague.
The IETF agenda is available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/93/agenda.html
Please note that it is still a preliminary agenda.

The BESS WG session (2h) is currently scheduled on
Monday, July 20th, Afternoon session II 15:20-17:20 (local time)

Please send us your request for a presentation slot, indicating:
draft name, speaker and desired duration (covering presentation +
discussion)

Please send the requests no later than July 5th
Thank you

MT

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-etree

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

Support! Another important draft!


Regards,

Patrice

   Patrice Brissette
TECHNICAL LEADER.ENGINEERING

pbris...@cisco.com
Phone: +1 613 254 3336

Cisco Systems Canada Co. / Les Systemes Cisco Canada CIE
Canada
Cisco.com http://www.cisco.com/global/CA/

 Think before you print.This
 email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient
(or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender
by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Please click here 
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html for
Company Registration Information.






On 2015-05-19, 3:22 PM, Martin Vigoureux
martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:

Hello working group,

This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-etree [1] as a working group item.

Please send comments to the list and state if you support adoption or
not (in the later case, please also state the reasons).

This poll runs until **June the 2nd**.


*Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that
applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for
more details).

*If you are listed as a document author or contributor* please respond
to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant
IPR.

The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from
each author and contributor.

If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please
explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet
been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you,

Martin  Thomas
bess chairs

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-etree

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess