[bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

[stephane.litkowski]

Hi WG,

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption 
draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04 [1]

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Tue 18th September.

Regards,
Stéphane and Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/






_

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,
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 authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] The BESS WG has placed draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

[IETF Secretariat]

The BESS WG has placed draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Stephane Litkowski)

The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF election in RFC 7432

[Alexander Vainshtein]

Ali,
Lots of thanks for a prompt and detailed response.
It matches my understanding of the situation with Single-Active Redundancy Mode 
of Ethernet Segments in EVPN.
In particular, your confirmation that “You cannot use LAG to do active/standby 
on a per VLAN basis (aka EVPN single-active)” was quite important.

I have also noticed that Single-Active is not mentioned at all  in RFC 
8388. I wonder what this means with regard 
to actual deployment of this mode.

Last but not least, I wonder if the expired 
draft on 
Port-Active multi-homing mode for EVPN will be refreshed and if, as part of 
such refresh, any details on the control plane of EVPN would be provided.

Regards, and, again, lots of thanks,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 8:00 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein 
Cc: bess@ietf.org; Michael Gorokhovsky ; Shell 
Nakash ; Ron Sdayoor ; Rotem 
Cohen 
Subject: Re: A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF 
election in RFC 7432

Hi Sasha,

I don’t see any contradiction between the two statements from RFC 7432 that you 
mentioned below. For All-Active, DF election is for BUM traffic of a given VLAN 
(or group of VLANs in case of VLAN bundling) in the egress direction toward an 
ES. For Single-Active, DF election is for all traffic of a given VLAN (or group 
of VLANs …) in both directions of an ES. Now with respect to notification of 
active VLANs to a CE device: MVRP mechanism that is mentioned in the RFC is an 
IEEE standard way of doing such thing. However, if the CE support E-LMI, then 
that protocol can be used as well. Regarding LAG, it can be used to connect a 
CE in an active/standby mode where one link is active and another link in 
standby mode (assuming two-link bundle). You cannot use LAG to do 
active/standby on a per VLAN basis (aka EVPN single-active).

I will be travelling over next few days with limited email access, so please 
expect some delay for my responses.

Cheers,
Ali

From: Alexander Vainshtein 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>>
Date: Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 6:09 AM
To: Cisco Employee mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" 
mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, Michael Gorokhovsky 
mailto:michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com>>, 
Shell Nakash mailto:shell.nak...@ecitele.com>>, Ron 
Sdayoor mailto:ron.sday...@ecitele.com>>, Rotem Cohen 
mailto:rotem.co...@ecitele.com>>
Subject: A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF election 
in RFC 7432

Ali and all,
I have a question regarding one of the aspects of RFC 7432, namely operation of 
the default Designated Forwarder (DF) election process on an Ethernet Segment 
(ES) that operates in the Single-Active Redundancy Mode.

RFC 7432 defines the Single-Active Redundancy Mode in Section 3 as following:
“Only a single PE, among all the PEs attached to an Ethernet segment, is 
allowed to forward traffic to/from that Ethernet segment for a given VLAN”.

The same RFC in Section 8.5 also specifies that the DF for a specific VLAN on a 
multi-homed Ethernet segment (ES) is the only PE attached to this segment that 
is responsible for sending BUM traffic for this VLAN to the CE. It also defined 
the default DF election procedure that elects a single “live” PE on the 
specific ES as the DF for each specific EVI that is represented on this ES.

These two definitions look contradictory to me, because:

  1.  The default DF election procedure only involves the PEs attached to the 
specific ES
  2.  In the Single-Active Redundancy mode the elected DF for a specific VLAN 
must also be the only PE that is allowed to forward traffic received with this 
VLAN from the CEs to the peer PEs. It is not clear to me, how this can be 
achieved.
 *   The RFC mentions MVRP as a possible method to notify the attached CEs 
that a specific PE is NOT a DF for a specific VLAN in the case of an ES that 
operates in the Single-Active Redundancy Mode. Does this mean that CEs that are 
attached to a multi-homed ES operating in Single-Active Redundancy Mode SHOULD 
support MVRP?
 *   Are there any alternatives to MVRP that can be used for this purpose. 
In particular, is it possible to use Ethernet Local Management Interface 
(E-LMI) as defined in 
MEF-16
 for this purpose?
 *   The RFC mentions LAG as the method to connect the CE to a multi-homed 
ES operating in the All-Active Redundancy Mode. Is it possible to connect a CE 
that uses LAG to a multi-homed ES operating in the Single-Active Redundancy 
Mode?

Your feedback would be highly appreciated.

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   
alexander.vainsht...@e

[bess] bess - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 103

[IETF Meeting Session Request Tool]

A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Stephane Litkowski, a 
Chair of the bess working group.


-
Working Group Name: BGP Enabled ServiceS
Area Name: Routing Area
Session Requester: Stephane Litkowski

Number of Sessions: 1
Length of Session(s):  2 Hours
Number of Attendees: 80
Conflicts to Avoid: 
 First Priority: idr nvo3
 Second Priority: spring sfc mpls pim bier pals
 Third Priority: i2rs l2sm


People who must be present:
  Matthew Bocci
  Martin Vigoureux
  Stephane Litkowski
  mankamana prasad mishra

Resources Requested:

Special Requests:
  Our two last sessions had a very busy agenda, it would be great to get a 2h30 
slot.

-

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

I support WG adoption.
Thanks,
Acee

From: BESS  on behalf of Stephane Litkowski 

Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 3:29 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

Hi WG,

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption 
draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04 [1]

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Tue 18th September.

Regards,
Stéphane and Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/






_



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,

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 authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF election in RFC 7432

[Krzysztof Szarkowicz]

Hi Sasha,

To use LAG in A/S mode on per VLAN basis, you can use ‘hack’, where you use 
preference-based DF election (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df) to ensure with the 
configuration that *all* VLANs on given ESI use PE1 as DF, and *all* VLANs on 
that ESI use PE2 as non-DF. Then, you need to have a mechanism to signal from 
PE2 to the CE the link standby status (e.g. via LACP, as used in MC-LAG 
deployments; or, I could even imagine per link CFM/LFM/E-LMI), so that CE 
doesn’t use link to PE2.

Thanks,
Krzysztof


> On 2018-Sep-04, at 10:39, Alexander Vainshtein 
>  wrote:
> 
> Ali,
> Lots of thanks for a prompt and detailed response.
> It matches my understanding of the situation with Single-Active Redundancy 
> Mode of Ethernet Segments in EVPN.
> In particular, your confirmation that “You cannot use LAG to do 
> active/standby on a per VLAN basis (aka EVPN single-active)” was quite 
> important.
>  
> I have also noticed that Single-Active is not mentioned at all  in RFC 8388 
> . I wonder what this means with regard 
> to actual deployment of this mode.
>  
> Last but not least, I wonder if the expired draft 
>  on 
> Port-Active multi-homing mode for EVPN will be refreshed and if, as part of 
> such refresh, any details on the control plane of EVPN would be provided.
>  
> Regards, and, again, lots of thanks,
> Sasha
>  
> Office: +972-39266302
> Cell:  +972-549266302
> Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com 
> 
>  
> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com 
> ] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 8:00 AM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein  >
> Cc: bess@ietf.org ; Michael Gorokhovsky 
> mailto:michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com>>; 
> Shell Nakash mailto:shell.nak...@ecitele.com>>; 
> Ron Sdayoor mailto:ron.sday...@ecitele.com>>; Rotem 
> Cohen mailto:rotem.co...@ecitele.com>>
> Subject: Re: A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF 
> election in RFC 7432
>  
> Hi Sasha,
>  
> I don’t see any contradiction between the two statements from RFC 7432 that 
> you mentioned below. For All-Active, DF election is for BUM traffic of a 
> given VLAN (or group of VLANs in case of VLAN bundling) in the egress 
> direction toward an ES. For Single-Active, DF election is for all traffic of 
> a given VLAN (or group of VLANs …) in both directions of an ES. Now with 
> respect to notification of active VLANs to a CE device: MVRP mechanism that 
> is mentioned in the RFC is an IEEE standard way of doing such thing. However, 
> if the CE support E-LMI, then that protocol can be used as well. Regarding 
> LAG, it can be used to connect a CE in an active/standby mode where one link 
> is active and another link in standby mode (assuming two-link bundle). You 
> cannot use LAG to do active/standby on a per VLAN basis (aka EVPN 
> single-active).
>  
> I will be travelling over next few days with limited email access, so please 
> expect some delay for my responses.
>  
> Cheers,
> Ali
>  
> From: Alexander Vainshtein  >
> Date: Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 6:09 AM
> To: Cisco Employee mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>
> Cc: "bess@ietf.org "  >, Michael Gorokhovsky  >, Shell Nakash 
> mailto:shell.nak...@ecitele.com>>, Ron Sdayoor 
> mailto:ron.sday...@ecitele.com>>, Rotem Cohen 
> mailto:rotem.co...@ecitele.com>>
> Subject: A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF 
> election in RFC 7432
>  
> Ali and all, <>
> I have a question regarding one of the aspects of RFC 7432, namely operation 
> of the default Designated Forwarder (DF) election process on an Ethernet 
> Segment (ES) that operates in the Single-Active Redundancy Mode.
>  
> RFC 7432 defines the Single-Active Redundancy Mode in Section 3 as following:
> “Only a single PE, among all the PEs attached to an Ethernet segment, is 
> allowed to forward traffic to/from that Ethernet segment for a given VLAN”.
>  
> The same RFC in Section 8.5 also specifies that the DF for a specific VLAN on 
> a multi-homed Ethernet segment (ES) is the only PE attached to this segment 
> that is responsible for sending BUM traffic for this VLAN to the CE. It also 
> defined the default DF election procedure that elects a single “live” PE on 
> the specific ES as the DF for each specific EVI that is represented on this 
> ES.
>  
> These two definitions look contradictory to me, because:
> The default DF election procedure only involves the PEs attached to the 
> specific ES
> In the Single-Active Redundancy mode the elected DF for a specific VLAN must 
> also be the only PE that is allowed to forward traffic received with this 
> VLAN from the CEs to the peer PEs. It is not clear to me, how this

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

[Jeff Tantsura]

Yes/support
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 02:06 Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:

> I support WG adoption.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *BESS  on behalf of Stephane Litkowski <
> stephane.litkow...@orange.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 3:29 AM
> *To: *"bess@ietf.org" 
> *Subject: *[bess] WG adoption poll for
> draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04
>
>
>
> Hi WG,
>
>
>
> This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption
> draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04 [1]
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group
> list, stating whether or not you support adoption.
>
>
>
> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
> this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with
> IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>
> If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please
> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
> relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't
> progress without answers from all the authors and contributors.
>
>
>
> If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please
> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been
> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
>
>
> The poll for working group adoption closes on Tue 18th September.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Stéphane and Matthew
>
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _
>
>
>
> 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,
>
> 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 authorisation.
>
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
> this message and its attachments.
>
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
> 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

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

[Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)]

Support for WG adoption, as a co-author.
Not aware of any IPR relevant to this document.

Thanks.
Jorge

From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:29 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

Hi WG,

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption 
draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04 [1]

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Tue 18th September.

Regards,
Stéphane and Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/






_



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,

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 authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF election in RFC 7432

[Alexander Vainshtein]

Krzysztof,
Lots of thanks for your email. If I understand you correctly, it actually 
replaces Single-Active Redundancy Mode with the Port-Active one as defined in 
the corresponding 
draft (it also 
uses the Preference-Based DF 
Election mechanism 
but tweaks it in such a way that it selects the same DF for all VLANs).

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

From: Krzysztof Szarkowicz [mailto:kszarkow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 12:14 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein 
Cc: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) ; Michael Gorokhovsky 
; Rotem Cohen ; Shell 
Nakash ; bess@ietf.org; Ron Sdayoor 

Subject: Re: [bess] A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and 
DF election in RFC 7432

Hi Sasha,

To use LAG in A/S mode on per VLAN basis, you can use ‘hack’, where you use 
preference-based DF election (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df) to ensure with the 
configuration that *all* VLANs on given ESI use PE1 as DF, and *all* VLANs on 
that ESI use PE2 as non-DF. Then, you need to have a mechanism to signal from 
PE2 to the CE the link standby status (e.g. via LACP, as used in MC-LAG 
deployments; or, I could even imagine per link CFM/LFM/E-LMI), so that CE 
doesn’t use link to PE2.

Thanks,
Krzysztof


On 2018-Sep-04, at 10:39, Alexander Vainshtein 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>> 
wrote:

Ali,
Lots of thanks for a prompt and detailed response.
It matches my understanding of the situation with Single-Active Redundancy Mode 
of Ethernet Segments in EVPN.
In particular, your confirmation that “You cannot use LAG to do active/standby 
on a per VLAN basis (aka EVPN single-active)” was quite important.

I have also noticed that Single-Active is not mentioned at all  in RFC 
8388. I wonder what this means with regard 
to actual deployment of this mode.

Last but not least, I wonder if the expired 
draft on 
Port-Active multi-homing mode for EVPN will be refreshed and if, as part of 
such refresh, any details on the control plane of EVPN would be provided.

Regards, and, again, lots of thanks,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   
alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 8:00 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>>
Cc: bess@ietf.org; Michael Gorokhovsky 
mailto:michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com>>; 
Shell Nakash mailto:shell.nak...@ecitele.com>>; Ron 
Sdayoor mailto:ron.sday...@ecitele.com>>; Rotem Cohen 
mailto:rotem.co...@ecitele.com>>
Subject: Re: A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF 
election in RFC 7432

Hi Sasha,

I don’t see any contradiction between the two statements from RFC 7432 that you 
mentioned below. For All-Active, DF election is for BUM traffic of a given VLAN 
(or group of VLANs in case of VLAN bundling) in the egress direction toward an 
ES. For Single-Active, DF election is for all traffic of a given VLAN (or group 
of VLANs …) in both directions of an ES. Now with respect to notification of 
active VLANs to a CE device: MVRP mechanism that is mentioned in the RFC is an 
IEEE standard way of doing such thing. However, if the CE support E-LMI, then 
that protocol can be used as well. Regarding LAG, it can be used to connect a 
CE in an active/standby mode where one link is active and another link in 
standby mode (assuming two-link bundle). You cannot use LAG to do 
active/standby on a per VLAN basis (aka EVPN single-active).

I will be travelling over next few days with limited email access, so please 
expect some delay for my responses.

Cheers,
Ali

From: Alexander Vainshtein 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>>
Date: Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 6:09 AM
To: Cisco Employee mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" 
mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, Michael Gorokhovsky 
mailto:michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com>>, 
Shell Nakash mailto:shell.nak...@ecitele.com>>, Ron 
Sdayoor mailto:ron.sday...@ecitele.com>>, Rotem Cohen 
mailto:rotem.co...@ecitele.com>>
Subject: A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF election 
in RFC 7432

Ali and all,
I have a question regarding one of the aspects of RFC 7432, namely operation of 
the default Designated Forwarder (DF) election process on an Ethernet Segment 
(ES) that operates in the Single-Active Redundancy Mode.

RFC 7432 defines the Single-Active Redundancy Mode in Section 3 as following:
“Only a single PE, among all the PEs attached to an Ethernet segment, is 
allowed to forward traffic to/from that Ethernet segment for a given VLAN”.

The same RFC in Section 8.5 also specifies that the DF for a

Re: [bess] A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF election in RFC 7432

[Krzysztof Szarkowicz]

Hi Sasha,

Yes, the end result is sort of Port-Active from the draft you reference, 
although the tool set (DF election methodology) is not the same.

Thanks,

> On 2018-Sep-04, at 13:53, Alexander Vainshtein 
>  wrote:
> 
> Krzysztof,
> Lots of thanks for your email. If I understand you correctly, it actually 
> replaces Single-Active Redundancy Mode with the Port-Active one as defined in 
> the corresponding draft 
>  (it also 
> uses the Preference-Based DF Election 
>  mechanism but 
> tweaks it in such a way that it selects the same DF for all VLANs).
>  
> Regards,
> Sasha
>  
> Office: +972-39266302
> Cell:  +972-549266302
> Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com 
> 
>  
> From: Krzysztof Szarkowicz [mailto:kszarkow...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 12:14 PM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein 
> Cc: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) ; Michael Gorokhovsky 
> ; Rotem Cohen ; 
> Shell Nakash ; bess@ietf.org; Ron Sdayoor 
> 
> Subject: Re: [bess] A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and 
> DF election in RFC 7432
>  
> Hi Sasha,
>  
> To use LAG in A/S mode on per VLAN basis, you can use ‘hack’, where you use 
> preference-based DF election (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df) to ensure with 
> the configuration that *all* VLANs on given ESI use PE1 as DF, and *all* 
> VLANs on that ESI use PE2 as non-DF. Then, you need to have a mechanism to 
> signal from PE2 to the CE the link standby status (e.g. via LACP, as used in 
> MC-LAG deployments; or, I could even imagine per link CFM/LFM/E-LMI), so that 
> CE doesn’t use link to PE2.
>  
> Thanks,
> Krzysztof
>  
>  
> On 2018-Sep-04, at 10:39, Alexander Vainshtein 
> mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>> 
> wrote:
>  
> Ali,
> Lots of thanks for a prompt and detailed response.
> It matches my understanding of the situation with Single-Active Redundancy 
> Mode of Ethernet Segments in EVPN.
> In particular, your confirmation that “You cannot use LAG to do 
> active/standby on a per VLAN basis (aka EVPN single-active)” was quite 
> important.
>  
> I have also noticed that Single-Active is not mentioned at all  in RFC 8388 
> . I wonder what this means with regard 
> to actual deployment of this mode.
>  
> Last but not least, I wonder if the expired draft 
>  on 
> Port-Active multi-homing mode for EVPN will be refreshed and if, as part of 
> such refresh, any details on the control plane of EVPN would be provided.
>  
> Regards, and, again, lots of thanks,
> Sasha
>  
> Office: +972-39266302
> Cell:  +972-549266302
> Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com 
> 
>  
> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com 
> ] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 8:00 AM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein  >
> Cc: bess@ietf.org ; Michael Gorokhovsky 
> mailto:michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com>>; 
> Shell Nakash mailto:shell.nak...@ecitele.com>>; 
> Ron Sdayoor mailto:ron.sday...@ecitele.com>>; Rotem 
> Cohen mailto:rotem.co...@ecitele.com>>
> Subject: Re: A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF 
> election in RFC 7432
>  
> Hi Sasha,
>  
> I don’t see any contradiction between the two statements from RFC 7432 that 
> you mentioned below. For All-Active, DF election is for BUM traffic of a 
> given VLAN (or group of VLANs in case of VLAN bundling) in the egress 
> direction toward an ES. For Single-Active, DF election is for all traffic of 
> a given VLAN (or group of VLANs …) in both directions of an ES. Now with 
> respect to notification of active VLANs to a CE device: MVRP mechanism that 
> is mentioned in the RFC is an IEEE standard way of doing such thing. However, 
> if the CE support E-LMI, then that protocol can be used as well. Regarding 
> LAG, it can be used to connect a CE in an active/standby mode where one link 
> is active and another link in standby mode (assuming two-link bundle). You 
> cannot use LAG to do active/standby on a per VLAN basis (aka EVPN 
> single-active).
>  
> I will be travelling over next few days with limited email access, so please 
> expect some delay for my responses.
>  
> Cheers,
> Ali
>  
> From: Alexander Vainshtein  >
> Date: Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 6:09 AM
> To: Cisco Employee mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>
> Cc: "bess@ietf.org "  >, Michael Gorokhovsky  >, Shell Nakash 
> mailto:shell.nak...@ecitele.com>>, Ron Sdayoor 
> mailto:ron.sday...@ecitele.com>>, Rotem Cohen 
> mailto:rotem.co...@ecitele.com>>
> Subject: A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode 

Re: [bess] A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF election in RFC 7432

[Alexander Vainshtein]

Krzysztof,
You are right, the Port-Active draft uses a different technique for DF election.

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

From: Krzysztof Szarkowicz [mailto:kszarkow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 3:04 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein 
Cc: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) ; Michael Gorokhovsky 
; Rotem Cohen ; Shell 
Nakash ; bess@ietf.org; Ron Sdayoor 

Subject: Re: [bess] A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and 
DF election in RFC 7432

Hi Sasha,

Yes, the end result is sort of Port-Active from the draft you reference, 
although the tool set (DF election methodology) is not the same.

Thanks,

On 2018-Sep-04, at 13:53, Alexander Vainshtein 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>> 
wrote:

Krzysztof,
Lots of thanks for your email. If I understand you correctly, it actually 
replaces Single-Active Redundancy Mode with the Port-Active one as defined in 
the corresponding 
draft (it also 
uses the Preference-Based DF 
Election mechanism 
but tweaks it in such a way that it selects the same DF for all VLANs).

Regards,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   
alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

From: Krzysztof Szarkowicz [mailto:kszarkow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 12:14 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>>
Cc: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>; 
Michael Gorokhovsky 
mailto:michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com>>; 
Rotem Cohen mailto:rotem.co...@ecitele.com>>; Shell 
Nakash mailto:shell.nak...@ecitele.com>>; 
bess@ietf.org; Ron Sdayoor 
mailto:ron.sday...@ecitele.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and 
DF election in RFC 7432

Hi Sasha,

To use LAG in A/S mode on per VLAN basis, you can use ‘hack’, where you use 
preference-based DF election (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df) to ensure with the 
configuration that *all* VLANs on given ESI use PE1 as DF, and *all* VLANs on 
that ESI use PE2 as non-DF. Then, you need to have a mechanism to signal from 
PE2 to the CE the link standby status (e.g. via LACP, as used in MC-LAG 
deployments; or, I could even imagine per link CFM/LFM/E-LMI), so that CE 
doesn’t use link to PE2.

Thanks,
Krzysztof


On 2018-Sep-04, at 10:39, Alexander Vainshtein 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>> 
wrote:

Ali,
Lots of thanks for a prompt and detailed response.
It matches my understanding of the situation with Single-Active Redundancy Mode 
of Ethernet Segments in EVPN.
In particular, your confirmation that “You cannot use LAG to do active/standby 
on a per VLAN basis (aka EVPN single-active)” was quite important.

I have also noticed that Single-Active is not mentioned at all  in RFC 
8388. I wonder what this means with regard 
to actual deployment of this mode.

Last but not least, I wonder if the expired 
draft on 
Port-Active multi-homing mode for EVPN will be refreshed and if, as part of 
such refresh, any details on the control plane of EVPN would be provided.

Regards, and, again, lots of thanks,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:  +972-549266302
Email:   
alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com

From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 8:00 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein 
mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>>
Cc: bess@ietf.org; Michael Gorokhovsky 
mailto:michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com>>; 
Shell Nakash mailto:shell.nak...@ecitele.com>>; Ron 
Sdayoor mailto:ron.sday...@ecitele.com>>; Rotem Cohen 
mailto:rotem.co...@ecitele.com>>
Subject: Re: A question regarding Single-Active ES redundancy mode and DF 
election in RFC 7432

Hi Sasha,

I don’t see any contradiction between the two statements from RFC 7432 that you 
mentioned below. For All-Active, DF election is for BUM traffic of a given VLAN 
(or group of VLANs in case of VLAN bundling) in the egress direction toward an 
ES. For Single-Active, DF election is for all traffic of a given VLAN (or group 
of VLANs …) in both directions of an ES. Now with respect to notification of 
active VLANs to a CE device: MVRP mechanism that is mentioned in the RFC is an 
IEEE standard way of doing such thing. However, if the CE support E-LMI, then 
that protocol can be used as well. Regarding LAG, it can be used to connect a 
CE in an active/standby mode where one link is active and another link in 
standby mode (assuming two-link bundle). You cannot use LAG to do 
active/standby on a per VLAN basis (aka EVPN single-active).

I will be travelling over next few days with limited email access, so please 
expect some delay for my

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

[LINGALA, AVINASH]

As a co-author , I support for WG adoption.
I am not aware of any IPR relevant to this document.

​
Thanks,
Avinash Lingala


From: BESS  On Behalf Of stephane.litkow...@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 3:29 AM
To: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

Hi WG,

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption 
draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04 [1]

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Tue 18th September.

Regards,
Stéphane and Matthew

[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/






_



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,

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 authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

[John E Drake]

Support, not aware of any IPR.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: BESS  On Behalf Of stephane.litkow...@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 3:29 AM
To: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

Hi WG,

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption 
draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04 [1]

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Tue 18th September.

Regards,
Stéphane and Matthew

[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/






_



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,

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 authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

[UTTARO, JAMES]

Support

Thanks,
Jim Uttaro

From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of LINGALA, AVINASH
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 9:32 AM
To: stephane.litkow...@orange.com; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***
Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.
As a co-author , I support for WG adoption.
I am not aware of any IPR relevant to this document.

​
Thanks,
Avinash Lingala


From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of 
stephane.litkow...@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 3:29 AM
To: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

Hi WG,

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption 
draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04 [1]

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Tue 18th September.

Regards,
Stéphane and Matthew

[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/






_



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,

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 authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

[Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)]

Support.

Thanks
Mankamana


From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:29 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

Hi WG,

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption 
draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04 [1]

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Tue 18th September.

Regards,
Stéphane and Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/






_



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,

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 authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

[Neeraj Malhotra]

Hi,

Support WG adoption as co-author. I am not aware of any IPR related to this
document.

Thanks,
Neeraj


On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:29 AM  wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
>
>
> This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption
> draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04 [1]
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group
> list, stating whether or not you support adoption.
>
>
>
> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
> this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with
> IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>
> If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please
> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
> relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't
> progress without answers from all the authors and contributors.
>
>
>
> If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please
> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been
> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
>
>
> The poll for working group adoption closes on Tue 18th September.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Stéphane and Matthew
>
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _
>
> 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,
> 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 authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
> this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
> 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

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

[Krishna Muddenahally Ananthamurthy (kriswamy)]

Support for WG adoption

Cheers
Kris

From: BESS  on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" 

Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:29 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

Hi WG,

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption 
draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04 [1]

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Tue 18th September.

Regards,
Stéphane and Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/






_



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,

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 authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election-00.txt

[internet-drafts]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.

Title   : Per multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election for 
EVPN
Authors : Ali Sajassi
  Mankamana Mishra
  Samir Thoria
  Jorge Rabadan
  John Drake
Filename: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election-00.txt
Pages   : 12
Date: 2018-09-04

Abstract:
   [RFC7432] describes mechanism to elect designated forwarder (DF) at
   the granularity of (ESI, EVI) which is per VLAN (or per group of
   VLANs in case of VLAN bundle or VLAN-aware bundle service).  However,
   the current level of granularity of per-VLAN is not adequate for some
   applications.[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] improves base
   line DF election by introducing HRW DF election.
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy] introduces applicability of EVPN
   to Multicast flows, routes to sync them and a default DF election.
   This document is an extension to HRW base draft
   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework] and further enhances HRW
   algorithm for the Multicast flows to do DF election at the
   granularity of (ESI, VLAN, Mcast flow).


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election-00


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

[Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)]

Same here. Support since this is very useful

From: BESS  on behalf of EXT Jeff Tantsura 

Date: Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 11:45
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" 
Cc: Stephane Litkowski , "bess@ietf.org" 

Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

Yes/support
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 02:06 Acee Lindem (acee) 
mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
I support WG adoption.
Thanks,
Acee

From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Stephane Litkowski 
mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>>
Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 3:29 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04

Hi WG,

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption 
draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04 [1]

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, 
stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this 
Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR 
rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please 
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress 
without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly 
respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in 
conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Tue 18th September.

Regards,
Stéphane and Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb/






_



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,

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 authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
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