Yes, I agree. I should have been more clearer, I meant must for right alignment 
since,
Not mandating that would cause interop issues.

Himanshu using iPad (so excuse the auto-corrects...)
________________________________
From: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) <pbris...@cisco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 9:39:12 PM
To: Shah, Himanshu; Sami Boutros; John E Drake; Alvaro Retana (aretana); 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-v...@ietf.org
Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; bess-cha...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

Himanshu,

I don’t think we should make the Eth-tag a MUST be 24 bit. It should be MAY  
but if you decide to use 24 bits, it MUST be right aligned.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

On 2017-02-21, 2:51 PM, "Shah, Himanshu" <hs...@ciena.com> wrote:

    ‘MAY’ does not work.
    It has to be ‘MUST’, IMO.

    Thanks,
    Himanshu

    On 2/21/17, 2:22 PM, "BESS on behalf of Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" 
<bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of pbris...@cisco.com> wrote:

        Folks,

        Why don’t we simply mention that the Eth–Tag is a 32 bit value and MAY 
be set to a 24 bits instance
        When 24 bits value is used is MAY be right aligned.

        Regards,
        Patrice Brissette

        On 2017-02-21, 2:18 PM, "BESS on behalf of Sami Boutros" 
<bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of sbout...@vmware.com> wrote:

            Hi John,

            I can add that the value is from 0 to 0x00ffffff, will that work?


            Thanks,

            Sami
            On 2/21/17, 10:56 AM, "John E Drake" <jdr...@juniper.net> wrote:

            >Sami,
            >
            >Snipped, comment inline
            >
            >Yours Irrespectively,
            >
            >John
            >
            >> >
            >> >> Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to the 24-bit VPWS 
service instance
            >> identifier value."
            >> >
            >> >
            >> >
            >> >Ok, but you still didn’t mention how the 24-bit value is to be 
aligned in the 32-
            >> bit field.  I’m guessing there will be some 0-padding, but will 
that the at the
            >> beginning or the end?
            >> >
            >>
            >> I made the VPWS service instance identifier a 32-bit value in 
the new draft.
            >>
            >
            >[JD]   I don't think you can do this as there are multiple 
implementations that use 24 bits
            >
            _______________________________________________
            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

Reply via email to