Hi Wen,
Yes, we absolutely need to support more than one remote VTEP in the access
side. As for how to deal with one or more than one remote VTEP, I don’t agree
it’s quite the same as one CE vs more than one CE. For a single VNI in a BD,
we should treat this as a single virtual ES in a BD,
Ali,
Lots of thanks for a prompt and very informative response.
You answers address all my comments, I expect to see them in the -03 revision
of the draft..
All,
I support progressing the draft with the changes mentioned in Ali’s email.
Regards,
Sasha
Office: +972-39266302
Cell:
Support, we have an implementation on this
From: BESS on behalf of EXT Jeff Tantsura
Date: Wednesday, 4 April 2018 at 00:59
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" ,
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-in...@ietf.org"
Support
G/
From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia -
GB)
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 14:50
To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-in...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for