RT-4 is a good example as we had the same issue of changing the length of the
route and at the time there were deployments of EVPN/PBB-EVPN multi-homing as
multi-homing is a key feature for EVPN. From your company Rahual Aggarwal was
the EVPN contact and we closely coordinated this and later
I think John’s point is very reasonable, especially when considering that the
current format of EVPN 8# route has been in current shape for many years.
The cleanest solution is to keep the format depicted in draft -04 (and its
predecessors) on code point 8, and to allocate a new code point for
Thank you
Gyan
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 2:13 AM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <
jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Gyan,
>
>
>
> Yes, the GW redundancy in the dci draft is based on an “Interconnect”
> Ethernet Segment (I-ES), that uses the same DF Election, split-horizon,
> mass
As a designated expert for this registry, I approve these allocations.
Thanks,
Acee
From: BESS on behalf of Gaurav Dawra
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 10:54 AM
To: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" , "bess@ietf.org"
Subject: [bess] Request for IANA early allocation for
draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services
Thanks Acee.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 8:05 AM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> As a designated expert for this registry, I approve these allocations.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *BESS on behalf of Gaurav Dawra <
> gdawra.i...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 10:54 AM
> *To:
Hi Ali,
Yes, of course the current sad situation requires operators to exercise extra
care (“good operational procedures”). The discussion is whether this shall
continue indefinitely into the future (if we keep using the same code point) or
if it has a clear end (if we move to a standardized
BEGIN:VCALENDAR
METHOD:REQUEST
PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010
VERSION:2.0
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Los_Angeles
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:16010101T02
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=1;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=11
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:16010101T02
Hi John,
My objection to using two code points for RT-8 and do a migration from old to
new is two folds:
1. As I explained in my previous emails, there are vendors who have
implemented both formats based on a single code point after our meeting around
IETF 106 and I don’t want to have them
All,
Tomorrow morning before meeting, I would create etherpad link per draft. And
people need to
1. Add name in blue sheet
2. Write name in queue per draft if you need to comment.
Any question, please let me know.
Mankamana
___
BESS mailing
Gyan,
Yes, the GW redundancy in the dci draft is based on an “Interconnect” Ethernet
Segment (I-ES), that uses the same DF Election, split-horizon, mass withdraw
and aliasing/backup procedures as any Ethernet Segment.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Gyan Mishra
Date: Monday, April 27, 2020 at 1:50 AM
10 matches
Mail list logo
