Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-keyupate-l2vpn-fat-pw-bgp

Martin, I support the adoption of this draft. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Martin Vigoureux martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote: Hello working group, This email starts a two-week poll on adopting draft-keyupate-l2vpn-fat-pw-bgp [1] as a working group item. Please

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Martin, That sounds reasonable to me. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Martin Vigoureux < martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > WG, > > we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to > our initial proposal. > After thinking further about that,

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Based on my experience on both the vendor and operator side, I see some practical problems with this approach: - There are some (many?) operators that won’t put drafts into an RFP, only RFCs. - There are some (many?) vendors that won’t implement a draft or RFC, no matter how good the quality,

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang

Thomas, I support adopting this as a WG draft, it’s excellent work. Cheers, Andy On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Thomas Morin wrote: > Hello working group, > > This email starts a two-week poll on adopting > draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang [1] as a working group

Re: [bess] [sfc] Extra time to reflect on draft-mackie-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane adoption following the IPR disclosure

I also agree with John. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Keyur Patel wrote: > Agree with John. I support the adoption. > > On 4/13/17, 12:03 PM, "sfc on behalf of John E Drake" < > sfc-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of jdr...@juniper.net> wrote: > > M, > > I

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

I also support this draft as ready for publication. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Support > > On 6/12/17, 12:27 PM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" > wrote: > >

Re: [bess] Signaling Control Word in EVPN

James, Agreed. We touched on that in section 7 of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw, where we advised operators that enabling post-CW DPI for ECMP calculations could cause misordering. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:35 AM James Bensley wrote: > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 15:16, Andrew G. Ma

Re: [bess] Signaling Control Word in EVPN

Sasha, In the light of draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw (very soon to be published as an RFC), we might want to take a second look at the recommendations in 7432. I think 8214 has it right, where it recommends the control word in the absence of an entropy label to prevent ECMP reordering. 7432 does

[bess] Comment on draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining-06

I just read the new revision of draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining. Although the draft doesn't use the RFC 8300 NSH, it could very easily take advantage of features provided by the NSH (such as metadata) by adding NSH over MPLS as defined in draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation to the list of

Re: [bess] Comment on draft-ietf-bess-service-chaining-06

ertised to the controller and from there sent to the forwarders with > egress interfaces for the previous SF in the chain. The label would be used > at the bottom of the MPLS stack as is done normally. > > > > Cheers > > > > Stuart > > -914 886 2534 > > >

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane

27, 2019 at 10:19 AM John E Drake wrote: > Andy, > > > > That sounds right. > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > *From:* Andrew G. Malis > *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2019 6:32 PM > *To:* John E Drake > *Cc:* Henderickx, W

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane

Thanks for your help. > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > *From:* Andrew G. Malis > *Sent:* Sunday, January 27, 2019 11:48 AM > *To:* John E Drake > *Cc:* Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) ; > stephane.litkow...@orange.com; bess@i

Re: [bess] Poll to progress draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-controlplane without implementation

I agree with Joel. I think a reason that we don't yet have implementations is that this draft has three normative references that are also still drafts (although two of them recently joined the RFC Editor's queue and the third has passed WG LC), so as they get implemented and we get more SFC

Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-06.txt

Adrian, The update looks good to me, and thanks for adding that additional paragraph to section 7.8. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 12:39 PM Adrian Farrel wrote: > All, > > Thanks for the comments we received during WG last call. > > John and I have also re-reviewed the entire text. >

Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-06

Stephane, Responding to one of your comments - making mpls-sfc-encaps a normative reference would be a downref, as it's an informational draft. That's OK as long as everyone is aware of it and it's documented in the IESG writeup, but that does have to happen. It may just be easier to keep it as

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-rabadan-sajassi-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-02

Yes/support. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:53 AM wrote: > This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of > draft-rabadan-sajassi-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-02 > > [1] > > > > Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group > list. > > > > We are also

Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-06

Adrian, (resending to everyone, not just Adrian) >>> References: >>> >>> I think that the mpls-sfc and mpls-sfc-encaps should also be >>> normative as you are defining a controlplane to use them. >> >>I don't mind doing that. > > [SLI] These two are more debatable. Let's keep them as info, and >

Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane

John, So, in order to support draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation, looking at draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps, you would use the value 10 from the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry, and also from your draft use the SFP Traversal With MPLS Label Stack TLV and the SPI/SI

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04

Matthew, I support adoption of this draft. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:42 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > > This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for > draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04 [1] . > > > > Please review the draft and

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-07

This draft is already pretty mature (it started almost a year ago and is now at -07) and stable (the last update was in April). It's pretty straightforward and non controversial. It's well past time for the WG to adopt it. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:13 AM wrote: > Hello, > > > >

Re: [bess] WG Adoption Poll for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-uasge-16

I support the re-adoption. Cheers, Andy *From:* Matthew Bocci (Nokia) *Sent:* Thursday, October 5, 2023 5:45 AM *To:* bess@ietf.org *Cc:* draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org *Subject:* WG Adoption Poll for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-uasge-16 WG This email starts a one-week WG adoption

Re: [bess] Endpoint-ID in draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-pals-ple-signaling-00

Christian and Sasha, Section 7 of RFC 4842 discusses the actions taken when you have trace mismatch conditions as well as other SONET/SDH-layer failures. Perhaps this text should be adapted to draft-ietf-pals-ple as well. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 8:34 AM Alexander Vainshtein <

Re: [bess] [Pals] IP-VPN without IP/UDP header transportation

Jeffrey, Thanks for the update! After having read the new draft, I completely agree. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 8:19 AM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > [changing subject] > > > > Hi, > > > > After filling in the signaling procedures for > draft-zzhang-pals-pw-for-ip-udp-payload,

Re: [bess] [Pals] [EXTERNAL] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7432 (7758)

Sasha, Andrew will take care of it. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:37 AM Alexander Vainshtein < alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> wrote: > Pavel, > > Lots of thanks for your email. > > Looks as we are aligned. I am not sure if the reporter of an Erratum > can revoke it (never tried