We have been talking about removing it since we started... Regards, Jeff
> On May 29, 2016, at 8:44 PM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US) > <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote: > > Sami, > > I'm ok to remove it too. > Thanks. > Jorge > > On 5/29/16, 6:35 PM, "Sami Boutros" <sbout...@vmware.com> wrote: > > Hi Jeff, > > I am ok to remove the BW section, adding other authors for their I/p. > > Thanks, > > Sami > From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzh...@juniper.net> > Date: Friday, May 27, 2016 at 2:41 PM > To: Sami Boutros <sbout...@vmware.com> > Cc: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org> > Subject: RE: [bess] FW: WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-03 > > Hi Sami, > > I thought about this BW topic further, and have the following question: > > - Even for the originally stated purpose, i.e. for PE1 to request PE2 to > request BW reservation in the network, why does it have to be signaled from > PE1? Why can’t you provision PE2 to request that BW reservation? You need to > provision service identifier on both PE1 and PE2 anyway, so you might as well > add BW provisioning on PE2. > > I understand that draft-boutros-bess-evpn-vpws-service-edge-gateway-02 does > specify that the service node could skip the service identifier configuration > and automatically signals the one that it receives from the access node. In > that case, signaling qos/bw parameters from the access node makes sense (in > that there is no need for configuration on the service node side). > > So, perhaps the entire BW or shaping signaling stuff could be moved from the > base EVPN-VPWS draft to draft-boutros-bess-evpn-vpws-service-edge-gateway? > > Jeffrey > > Sami: The issue here is that we are using the BW idr draft, and there is no > shaping defined there, and we don’t plan to define a new attribute for this, > perhaps we can add that to a new draft? > Zzh2> Good point that BW is not equal to shaping parameters; however, > existing PW specifications do not seem to have BW related stuff and one > actual customer use case I am aware of with EVPN VPWS actually does involve > shaping; so maybe it’s better to take care of this in the base spec? It’s > just a new attribute anyway. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
