Hi Donald,
Thank you for this.
For the second question, I get from your answer that you will keep both
encapsulations for the time being?
Thanks.
Jorge
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, November 5, 2018 at 8:48 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>,
"draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd.auth...@ietf.org"
<draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd.auth...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Comments about draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-01
Hi Jorge,
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:44 AM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain
View) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> Dear authors,
>
> I couldn’t make it to the BESS meeting, so my apologies if some of these
things have been discussed.
>
> Some comments/questions:
Thanks for sending comments.
> - In the last IETF, I suggested the use of BGP and the BGP-BFD attribute
to exchange discriminators, as in section 3.1.6 of
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover. The idea seemed to be accepted, but it is
not in the new version. This would allow the signaling of the discriminators
along with MAC/IP routes, IMET routes, AD per-EVI routes, IP-Prefix routes,
etc. without the burden of having to support the EVPN LSP-ping draft.
There is a draft version -02 in the works intended to include
distribution of BFD discriminators in BGP but this revision was not
completed to the agreement of the authors in time to posted before
this meeting.
> - The draft describes an encapsulation and an alternative encapsulation.
Is the intend to keep both? Wouldn't be better to leave only one to ease
implementations and interoperability?
Currently, the candidate version -02 draft dispenses with with the
alternative encapsulation.
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
> Thank you.
> Jorge
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
