It also works with VXLAN/GPE btw. On top the solution I outlined is future proof as well.
The key question is do people want a native VXLAN/NVGRE solution in the DC using existing TOR HW and/or vwitches. This will imply dealing with: - Global VNID/labels -> driven by current TOR HW (most people will never deploy this) - We have not spoken about the MAC manipulation in all details but will most likely require a routing lookup in the TOR and will limit performance in some HW TOR(s). - An implementation on ASBR that only is required for this use case. It will be very expensive to carry forward -> the cost versus the benefit is big and if people want a uniform data plane VXLAN-GPE is an option which is very close to native VXLAN. On 20/11/15 22:21, "Haoweiguo" <haowei...@huawei.com> wrote: >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