Jim, And what now RTC has to do with this discussion ???
r. On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:51 PM, UTTARO, JAMES <ju1...@att.com> wrote: > IMO there are more important reasons why one does not deploy RTC. > > Jim Uttaro > > -----Original Message----- > From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mach Chen > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 2:05 AM > To: Haoweiguo; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Thomas Morin; BESS > Cc: IDR Chairs > Subject: Re: [bess] 答复: 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN > > Hi Weiguo, Wim and others, > > IMHO, AFI/SAFI based Flowspec would have better scalability and > compatibility. There is a precedent (RT-Constrain) that adopted the unified > RT for all AFI/SAFI that bring many limitation when deploying RTC. > > Best regards, > Mach > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Haoweiguo > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 8:42 AM > > To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Thomas Morin; BESS > > Cc: IDR Chairs > > Subject: [bess] 答复: 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN > > > > Hi Wim, > > It seems to be a solution. Another problem: > > Current BGP flow spec for L2 VPN /L3 VPN relies on Rout Target for policy > > import/export. If using unified solution, RT can't overlap between > different > > applications(L2VPN,L3VPN...). If using separating AFI/SAFI solution, no > RT > > constraint issue. > > Maybe there are other questions for unified solution, i would like to > hear other > > expert's comments on your proposal. > > Thanks > > weiguo > > > > ________________________________________ > > 发件人: BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > > [wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] > > 发送时间: 2014年11月14日 8:27 > > 收件人: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS > > 抄送: IDR Chairs > > 主题: Re: [bess] 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN > > > > We define a new AFI/SAFI that accommodates all we have + include L2 > > extensions. > > Operators that don’t need L2 extensions keep what they have. > > Operators that need L2 extensions go to the new method or mix the new > > method with the old methods per service type. > > > > Make sense? > > > > On 13/11/14 14:16, "Haoweiguo" <haowei...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > >How to achieve compatability with current existed flowspec[RFC5575] > > >applications? > > >Thanks > > >weiguo > > > > > >________________________________________ > > >发件人: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] > > >发送时间: 2014年11月14日 8:14 > > >收件人: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS > > >抄送: IDR Chairs > > >主题: Re: 答复: [bess] Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN > > > > > >If we define a new things I prefer to address the wider issue and > > >include > > >L2 in that. > > > > > >On 13/11/14 14:13, "Haoweiguo" <haowei...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > > >>Hi Wim, > > >>Allocating different AFI/SAFI(s) for each flow spec application is a > > >>applicable solution. Theoretically, unified mechanism for all flowspec > > >>can be designed, but it maybe a more harder work in IDR. > > >>Thanks > > >>weiguo > > >> > > >>________________________________________ > > >>发件人: BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > > >>[wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] > > >>发送时间: 2014年11月14日 7:55 > > >>收件人: Thomas Morin; BESS > > >>抄送: IDR Chairs > > >>主题: Re: [bess] Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN > > >> > > >>As I stated in the IDR meeting my observation is that we require to > > >>many > > >>AFI/SAFI(s) for all flow spec functions. Flow spec in general is > > >>providing match criteria¹s with related actions. Given the proposal on > > >>Flowspec for > > >>L2 is new we should look at the bigger picture. > > >>In My view we need a mechanism in BGP to advertise Flowspec match > > >>criteria¹s with related actions and they should cover L2/L3-IPv4/IPv6. > > >> > > >>On 13/11/14 13:44, "Thomas Morin" <thomas.mo...@orange.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>>Hi WG, > > >>> > > >>>A heads up... > > >>> > > >>>These two drafts relate to BESS and thus may be of interest to us: > > >>>- draft-hao-idr-flowspec-l2vpn > > >>><http://tools.ietf.org/html?draft=draft-hao-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-01> > > >>>(on idr agenda, being presented right now) > > >>>- draft-hao-idr-flowspec-evpn > > >>><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-evpn-00> > > >>> > > >>>Best, > > >>> > > >>>-Thomas > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
