Jorge, We all know that Wim's MPLS/MPLS/UDP solution works, but it's not the only choice. Wim's solution requires MPLSoGRE/UDP encap in data center, but many data centers only use VXLAN/NVGRE encapsulation for both north-south and east-west bound traffic, how to interconnect with outside MPLS VPN network for these data centers? So VXLAN/NVGRE and MPLS VPN network interworking is needed. And for the interconnection solution, we suggest both no TOR/NVE hardware enhancement solution and future proof solution should be provided. Thanks, weiguo ________________________________________ From: BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge) [jorge.raba...@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 3:31 To: UTTARO, JAMES; John E Drake; EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com; Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); bess@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc
IMHO if TOR chip vendors can confirm they are seriously looking at MPLS/MPLS/UDP, Wim’s suggestion makes all the sense since we know it works and scales. My 2 cents. Jorge On 11/20/15, 9:51 AM, "BESS on behalf of UTTARO, JAMES" <bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ju1...@att.com> wrote: >+1 > >-----Original Message----- >From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John E Drake >Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 12:19 PM >To: EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com; Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); >bess@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc > >Lucy, > >My apologies, I misunderstood. > >I think we have to accept the fact that we will have to deal with a >multiplicity of different encapsulations in the data plane along a packet's >e2e path and that we should take a more measured approach to deciding how to >deal with this in a general and extensible way before accepting any solutions. > >Yours Irrespectively, > >John > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: thomas.mo...@orange.com [mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com] >> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 12:04 PM >> To: John E Drake; Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); bess@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc >> >> 2015-11-20, John E Drake: >> > That presupposes that the group likes either of the two proposed solutions >> in your draft. >> >> John, I think Lucy's "two solutions" was referring to draft-hao-bess-inter- >> nvo3-vpn-optionc solution and the 3-label Optionc MPLS/MPLS/UDP solution >> described by Wim. >> >> -Thomas >> >> >> >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lucy yong >> >> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:49 AM >> >> To: EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); >> >> bess@ietf.org >> >> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc >> >> >> >> Share my 2 cent. >> >> >> >> Cloud providers want to tunnel its customer traffic through DC (AS)BR. >> >> Option C is a way to realize it. Both solutions summarized by Thomas >> >> have no change on WAN VPN side and seamlessly work with WAN VPN >> option C. >> >> However, to support either solution, DC has to do some enhancement on >> >> DC BR or ToR switch, etc, which dictates to different implementations >> >> within a DC. Option C pro and con remains regardless what >> >> implementation is used in a DC. >> >> >> >> Two solutions should not coexist in one DC (does not make a sense), >> >> but it does not matter if one DC operator prefers to use one solution >> >> and another DC prefers to use another solution. Since there are many >> >> cloud providers today, it is worth for the WG to document both >> >> solutions and point out the implementation requirements on impacted >> >> components. Then, up to vendors and operators to select a solution for >> their DC. >> >> >> >> It does not make a sense for us to vote which solution is better here >> >> because a better solution for a DC depends on many factors. >> >> >> >> >> >> Lucy >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> >> thomas.mo...@orange.com >> >> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 3:02 AM >> >> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim); bess@ietf.org >> >> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc >> >> >> >> 2015-11-19, Henderickx, Wim (Wim): >> >>> WH> I vote for a an evolution of switches/TORs that have proper >> >>> support for this. I hope some HW vendors of TOR chips shime in, but >> >>> I am told the MPLS solution is possible in the next generation chips >> >>> they are working on. >> >> >> >> Well, it looks like the key questions are: >> >> - when would ToR chips support MPLS/MPLS/UDP ? (the generation that >> >> has been released recently but not present in most shipping ToRs yet, >> >> the next one ?) >> >> - do we want an interim VXLAN-based solution ? (that will involve at >> >> best a performance penalty with existing chips, and at worse >> >> impossible to implement -- we haven't seen clear information in this >> >> thread) >> >> >> >> -Thomas >> >> >> >> >> >>>> Zhuangshunwan : >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Diego, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thanks for your comments. Pls see inline with [Vincent]. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Vincent >> >>>>> >> >>>>> *发件人:*BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] *代表 *Diego Garcia >> >> del Rio >> >>>>> *发送时间:*2015年11月18日14:25 *收件人:*bess@ietf.org *主题 >> >> :*Re: [bess] >> >>>>> draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Some comments from my side, I think the draft makes quite a few >> >>>>> assumptions on specific implementation details that are way too >> >>>>> general to be considered widely available. Most of the TOR devices >> >>>>> today already pay a double-pass penalty when doing routing of >> >>>>> traffic in/out of vxlan-type tunnels. Only the newest generation >> >>>>> can route into tunnels without additional passes. And are >> >>>>> definitively limited in being able to arbitrary select UDP ports >> >>>>> on a per tunnel basis. In fact, most are even limited at using >> >>>>> more than one VNID per "service" of sorts. [Vincent]: Yes, the new >> >>>>> generation BCM chipset has already supported VXLAN routing >> without >> >>>>> additional passes. For OVS/TOR, VXLAN encapsulation is more >> >>>>> popular than MPLSoGRE/UDP, and has better performance. The >> >>>>> IP-addressed based implementation which would, I assume, imply >> >>>>> assigning one or more CIDRs to a loopback interface on the ASBR-d >> >>>>> is also quite arbitrary and does not seem like a technically >> >>>>> "clean" solution. (besides burning tons of IPs). As a side-note, >> >>>>> most PE-grade routers i've worked with were quite limited in terms >> >>>>> of IP addresses used for tunnel termination and it wasn't that >> >>>>> just a simple pool can be used. [Vincent]: I think the larger VTEP >> >>>>> IP address range on ASBR-d has no limitations. >> >>>>> For the hardware on ASBR-d, it has capability to terminate >> >>>>> multiple VXLAN tunnels with arbitrary destination VTEP IP >> >>>>> addresses. Wim's mentions on cases where the Application itself, >> >>>>> hosted in a datacenter, would be part of the option-C >> >>>>> interconnect, was dismissed without much discussion so far, while, >> >>>>> if we look in detail at the type of users which will even consider >> >>>>> a complex topology like model-C its most likely users and >> >>>>> operators very familiar with MPLS VPNs in the WAN. Those type of >> >>>>> operators will most likely be very interested in deploying MPLS or >> >>>>> WAN-grade applications (i.e., virtual-routers or other >> >>>>> VNFs) in the DC and thus its highly likely that the interconnect >> >>>>> would not terminate at the NVE itself but rather the TS (the >> >>>>> virtual machine). Also, the use of UDP ports at random would imply >> >>>>> quite complex logic on the ASBR-d IMHO. Im not saying its >> >>>>> impossible, but since the received packet now not only has to be >> >>>>> received on a random (though locally chosen) UDP port and this >> >>>>> information preserved in the pipeline to be able to do the >> >>>>> double-tunnel-stitching, it sounds quite complex. I am sure >> >>>>> someone in the list will mention this has already been implemented >> >>>>> somewhere, and I won't argue with that. And let's not even bring >> >>>>> into account what this would do to any DC middlebox that now has >> >>>>> to look at vxlan over almost any random port. We have to go back >> >>>>> to the "is it a 4 or is it a 6 in byte x" heuristics to try to >> >>>>> guess whether the packet is vxlan or just something entirely >> >>>>> different running over IP. [Vincent]: Using NP or multi-core CPU >> >>>>> hardware technology, it can be implemented although deeper packet >> >>>>> inspection is needed to perform UDP port and MPLS stitching. In >> >>>>> general I feel the proposed solution seems to be fitting of a >> >>>>> specific use-case which is not really detailed >> >>>>> in the draft and does not describe a solution that would >> >>>>> "elegantly" solve the issues at hand. It just feels like we're >> >>>>> using any available bit-space to stuff data into places that do >> >>>>> not necesarily belong. Yes, MPLS encapsulations on virtual >> >>>>> switches are not yet fully available, and there can be some >> >>>>> performance penalty on the TORs, but the solutions are much >> >>>>> cleaner from a control and data plane point of view. Maybe I'm too >> >>>>> utopic. [Vincent]: I think pure VXLAN solution has its scenario, >> >>>>> it's general rather than specific. We can't require all OVS/NVEs >> >>>>> support VXLAN + MPLSoGRE at the same time. Best regards, Diego >> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> ------------- >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >> Hi, >> >>>>> The problem we are trying to solve is to reduce data center >> >>>>> GW/ASBR-d's forwarding table size, the motivation is same as >> >>>>> traditional MPLS VPN option-C. Currently, the most common practise >> >>>>> on ASBR-d is to terminate VXLAN encapsulation, look up local >> >>>>> routing table, and then perform MPLS encapsulation to the WAN >> network. >> >>>>> ASBR-d needs to maintain all VM's MAC/IP. In Option-C method, only >> >>>>> transport layer information needed to be maintained at GW/ASBR-d, >> >>>>> the scalability will be greatly enhanced. Traditonal Option-C is >> >>>>> only for MPLS VPN network interworking, because VXLAN is >> becoming >> >>>>> pervasive in data center, the solution in this draft was proposed >> >>>>> for the heterogeneous network interworking. The advantage of this >> >>>>> solution is that only VXLAN encapsulation is required for OVS/TOR. >> >>>>> Unlike Wim's solution, east-west bound traffic uses VXLAN encap, >> >>>>> while north-south bound traffic uses MPLSoGRE/UDP encap. There >> are >> >>>>> two solutions in this draft: 1. Using VXLAN tunnel destination IP >> >>>>> for stitching at ASBR-d. No data plane modification requirements >> >>>>> on OVS or TOR switches, only hardware changes on ASBR-d. ASBR-d >> >>>>> normally is router, it has capability to realize the hardware >> >>>>> changes. It will consume many IP addresses and the IP pool for >> >>>>> allocation needs to be configured on ASBR-d beforehand. 2. Using >> >>>>> VXLAN destination UDP port for stitching at ASBR-d. Compared with >> >>>>> solution 1, less IP address will be consumed for allocation. If >> >>>>> UDP port range is too large, we can combine with solution 1 and 2. >> >>>>> In this solution, both data plane modification changes are needed >> >>>>> at OVS/TOR and ASBR-d. ASBR-d also has capability to realize the >> >>>>> hardware changes. For OVS, it also can realize the data plane >> >>>>> changes. For TOR switch, it normally can't realize this function. >> >>>>> This solution mainly focuses on pure software based overlay >> >>>>> network, it has more scalability. In public cloud data center, >> >>>>> software based overlay network is the majority case. Whether using >> >>>>> solution 1 or 2 depends on the operators real envionment. So I >> >>>>> think our solution has no flaws, it works fine. >> >>>>> Thanks, weiguo ________________________________ From: BESS >> >>>>> [bess-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>] on behalf >> >>>>> of John E Drake [jdr...@juniper.net <mailto:jdr...@juniper.net>] >> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 2:49 To: Henderickx, Wim >> (Wim); >> >>>>> EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com >> <mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>; >> >> BESS >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Hi, I >> >>>>> think Wim has conclusively demonstrated that this draft has fatal >> >>>>> flaws and I don’t support it. I also agree with his suggestion >> >>>>> that we first figure out what problem we are trying to solve >> >>>>> before solving it. Yours Irrespectively, John From: BESS >> >>>>> [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>] On >> >>>>> Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 >> >>>>> 12:49 PM To: EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com >> >>>>> <mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>; BESS Subject: Re: [bess] >> >>>>> draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc ― Snip ― No, the spec as it >> >>>>> is can be implemented in its VXLAN variant with existing vswitches >> >>>>> (e.g. OVS allows to choose the VXLAN destination port, ditto for >> >>>>> the linux kernel stack). (ToR is certainly another story, most of >> >>>>> them not having a flexible enough VXLAN dataplane nor support for >> >>>>> any >> >>>>> MPLS-over-IP.) WH> and how many ports simultaneously would they >> >>>>> support? For this to work every tenant needs a different VXLAN UDP >> >>>>> destination port/receive port. There might be SW elements that >> >>>>> could do some of this, but IETF defines solutions which should be >> >>>>> implemented across the board HW/SW/etc. >> >>>>> Even if some SW switches can do this, the proposal will impose so >> >>>>> many issues in HW/data-plane engines that I cannot be behind this >> >>>>> solution. To make this work generically we will have to make >> >>>>> changes anyhow. Given this, we better do it in the right way and >> >>>>> guide the industry to a solution which does not imply those >> complexities. >> >>>>> Otherwise we will stick with these specials forever with all >> >>>>> consequences (bugs, etc). - snip - From: >> >>>>> "thomas.mo...@orange.com >> >>>>> >> >> >> <mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com><mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com >> >>>>> <mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>>" <thomas.mo...@orange.com >> >>>>> >> >> >> <mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com><mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com >> >>>>> <mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>>> Organization: Orange Date: >> >>>>> Tuesday 17 November 2015 at 01:37 To: Wim Henderickx >> >>>>> <wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com >> >>>>> <mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel- >> >> lucent.com><mailto:wim.henderickx@alc >> >>>>> atel-lucent.com >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >> <mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>>>, BESS <bess@ietf.org >> >>>>> <mailto:bess@ietf.org><mailto:bess@ietf.org >> >>>>> <mailto:bess@ietf.org>>> Subject: Re: [bess] >> >>>>> draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Hi Wim, WG, 2015-11-16, >> >>>>> Henderickx, Wim (Wim): 2015-11-13, Henderickx, Wim (Wim): >> Thomas, >> >> we >> >>>>> can discuss forever and someone need to describe requirements, but >> >>>>> the current proposal I cannot agree to for the reasons explained. >> >>>>> TM> Well, although discussing forever is certainly not the goal, >> >>>>> TM> the >> >>>>> reasons for rejecting a proposal need to be thoroughly understood. >> >>>>> WH> my point is what is the real driver for supporting a plain >> >>>>> WH> VXLAN >> >>>>> data-plane here, the use cases I have seen in this txt is always >> >>>>> where an application behind a NVE/TOR is demanding option c, but >> >>>>> none of the NVE/TOR elements. >> >>>>> My understanding is that the applications are contexts where >> >>>>> overlays are present is when workloads (VMs or baremetal) need to >> >>>>> be interconnected with VPNs. In these contexts, there can be >> >>>>> reasons to want Option C to reduce the state on ASBRs. In these >> >>>>> context, its not the workload (VM or baremetal) that would >> >>>>> typically handle VRFs, but really the vswitch or ToR. WH2> can it not >> be all cases: >> >>>>> TOR/vswitch/Application. I would make the solution flexible to >> >>>>> support all of these not? 2015-11-13, Henderickx, Wim (Wim): TM> >> >>>>> The right trade-off to make may in fact depend on whether you >> prefer: >> >>>>> (a) a new dataplane stitching behavior on DC ASBRs (the behavior >> >>>>> specified in this draft) or >> >>>>> (b) an evolution of the encaps on the vswitches and ToRs to >> >>>>> support MPLS/MPLS/(UDP or GRE) WH> b depends on the use case I >> >>>>> don't get what you mean by "b depends on the use case". WH> see >> my >> >>>>> above comment. If the real use case is an application behind >> >>>>> NVE/TOR requiring model C, than all the discussion on impact on >> >>>>> NVE/TOR is void. As such I want to have a discussion on the real >> >>>>> driver/requirement for option c interworking with an IP based >> >>>>> Fabric. Although I can agree than detailing requirements can >> >>>>> always help, I don't think one can assume a certain application to >> >>>>> dismiss the proposal. WH> for me the proposal is not acceptable >> >>>>> for the reasons explained: too much impact on the data-planes I >> >>>>> wrote the above based on the idea that the encap used in >> >>>>> MPLS/MPLS/(UDP or GRE), which hence has to be supported on the >> ToRs and vswitches. >> >>>>> Another possibility would be service-label/middle-label/Ethernet >> >>>>> assuming an L2 adjacency between vswitches/ToRs and ASBRs, but >> >>>>> this certainly does not match your typical DC architecture. Or >> >>>>> perhaps had you something else in mind ? WH> see above. The draft >> >>>>> right now also requires changes in existing TOR/NVE so for me all >> >>>>> this discussion/debate is void. No, the spec as it is can be >> >>>>> implemented in its VXLAN variant with existing vswitches (e.g. OVS >> >>>>> allows to choose the VXLAN destination port, ditto for the linux >> >>>>> kernel stack). (ToR is certainly another story, most of them not >> >>>>> having a flexible enough VXLAN dataplane nor support for any >> >>>>> MPLS-over-IP.) >> >>>>> WH> and how many ports simultaneously would they support? WH> >> and >> >>>>> depending on implementation you don’t need to change any of the >> >>>>> TOR/vswitches. Does this mean that for some implementations you >> >>>>> may not need to change any of the TOR/vswitches, but that for some >> >>>>> others you may ? WH> any proposal on the table requires changes, >> >>>>> so for me this is not a valid discussion See above, the proposal >> >>>>> in the draft does not necessarily need changes in vswitches. Let >> >>>>> me take a practical example : while I can quite easily see how to >> >>>>> implement the procedures in draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc >> >>>>> based on current vswitch implementations of VXLAN, the lack of >> >>>>> MPLS/MPLS/(UDP, GRE) support in commonplace vswitches seems to >> >> me as >> >>>>> making that alternate solution you suggest harder to implement. >> >>>>> WH> I would disagree to this. Tell me which switch/TOR handles >> >>>>> multiple UDP ports for VXLAN ? I mentioned _v_switches, and many >> >>>>> do support a variable destination port for VXLAN, which is >> >>>>> sufficient to implement what the draft proposes. -Thomas From: >> >>>>> Thomas Morin <thomas.mo...@orange.com >> >>>>> >> >> >> <mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com><mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com >> >>>>> <mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>>> Organization: Orange Date: >> >>>>> Friday 13 November 2015 at 09:57 To: Wim Henderickx >> >>>>> <wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com >> >>>>> <mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel- >> >> lucent.com><mailto:wim.henderickx@alc >> >>>>> atel-lucent.com >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >> <mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>>> >> >>>>> Cc: "bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org><mailto:bess@ietf.org >> >>>>> <mailto:bess@ietf.org>>" <bess@ietf.org >> >>>>> <mailto:bess@ietf.org><mailto:bess@ietf.org >> >>>>> <mailto:bess@ietf.org>>> Subject: Re: [bess] >> >>>>> draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Hi Wim, I agree on the >> >>>>> analysis that this proposal is restricted to implementations that >> >>>>> supports the chosen encap with non-IANA ports (which may be hard >> >>>>> to achieve for instance on hardware implementations, as you >> >>>>> suggest), or to context where managing multiple IPs would be >> >>>>> operationally viable. However, it does not seem obvious to me how >> >>>>> the alternative you propose [relying on 3-label option C with an >> >>>>> MPLS/MPLS/(UDP|GRE) encap] addresses the issue of whether the >> >> encap >> >>>>> behavior is supported or not (e.g. your typical ToR chipset >> >>>>> possibly may not support this kind of encap, and even >> >>>>> software-based switches may not be ready to support that today). >> >>>>> My take is that having different options to adapt to various >> >>>>> implementations constraints we may have would have value. (+ one >> >>>>> question below on VXLAN...) -Thomas 2015-11-12, Henderickx, Wim >> >>>>> (Wim): On VXLAN/NVGRE, do you challenge the fact that they would >> >>>>> be used with a dummy MAC address that would be replaced by the >> >>>>> right MAC by a sender based on an ARP request when needed ? Is the >> >>>>> above the issue you had in mind about VXLAN and NVGRE ? WH> yes I >> >>>>> you don't mind me asking : why do you challenge that ? >> >>>>> >> >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> >> _____ >> >> >> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, >> >> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message >> >> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi >> >> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles >> >> d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si >> >> ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci >> >> >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or >> >> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not >> >> be distributed, used or copied without authorization. >> >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender >> >> and delete this message and its attachments. >> >> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange shall not be liable >> >> if this message was modified, changed or falsified. >> >> Thank you. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> __________________________________________________________ >> _____ >> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, >> exploites >> ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, >> veuillez >> le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les >> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou >> falsifie. Merci >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >> information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, >> used or copied without authorization. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete >> this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange shall not be liable if this >> message was modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. > >_______________________________________________ >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
