Re: [bess] A question on CE behavior on traffic forwarding to EVPN multihomed PEs in single-active mode

I guess it worth clarify CE using LAG or L2 switching to connect to PE in the question. Thanks Tim On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, 07:51 Mrinmoy Ghosh (mrghosh) Hi Jaikumar, > > > > EVPN Single active heavily depends upon MAC Flush mechanism like MVRP or > TCN Flush. > > > > In your topology, initially CE1

Re: [bess] A question on CE behavior on traffic forwarding to EVPN multihomed PEs in single-active mode

Thanks Mrinmoy for the quick answer. Thanks & Regards Jaikumar S From: Mrinmoy Ghosh (mrghosh) Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 1:21 PM To: Jaikumar Somasundaram ; bess@ietf.org Cc: Pradeep Ramakrishnan ; Chalapathi Andhe Subject: RE: A question on CE behavior on traffic forwarding to EVPN m

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

Hi Sandy, thank you for your kind consideration of the proposed updates. I've logged my answers under GIM3>> tag. Regards, Greg On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:44 PM wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Thank you for your good modification and clarification! > About two sections I still have some comments, I copy

Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

Hi Greg, Thank you very much for your clarification! I made a mistake that I thought the BFD session is the base solution for UMH failover. Now I get it. Thank you! BTW: In section 3.1.2, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-08" may be mentioned as another example like MPLS FRR. Thanks, Sandy ---