Hi Sacha Thank you for your question and comments. Yes, LSP Ping for EVPN VPWS service can be supported by defining and returning new return code in echo reply message. We will add the details in the next version of the draft and address all your comments.
Thanks Parag From: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> Date: Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 2:54 AM To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com> Cc: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, Alexander Ferdman <alexander.ferd...@rbbn.com>, Dmitry Valdman <dmitry.vald...@rbbn.com>, Ron Sdayoor <ron.sday...@rbbn.com>, Nitsan Dolev <nitsan.do...@rbbn.com>, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: A question pertaining to validation of LSP Ping Echo requests in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-08 Hi Ali, Lots of thanks for a prompt and very detailed response, and my sincere apologies for a delayed response. Please see a short comment to your response marked [[Sasha]] inline below. Please note also that I have recently added yet another question to my list, I am copying here it for your convenience: RFC 8214<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8214> defines usage of per EVI EVPN A-D (Type 1) routes in EVPN-VPWS in addition to their usage for aliasing/backup path defined in RFC 7432. Suppose that the operator tries to perform a connectivity check to the aliasing function of some EVI but the PE that receives an LSP Ping Echo request with the EVPN Ethernet AD sub-TLV in the target label stack and label has advertised this FEC and label for a specific Attachment Circuit of an EVPN-VPWS instance. Is there any way it can indicate in the Echo Reply message that the label matches the target FEC but this FEC and label are used for EVPN-VPWS and not for aliasing? I see that the current version of the draft does not even mention RFC 8214
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
