Re: [bess] WG Adoption Poll for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-uasge-16

[Huaimo Chen]

Hi Everyone,

I support it.

Best Regards,
Huaimo

From: BESS  on behalf of Matthew Bocci (Nokia) 

Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 6:45 AM
To: bess@ietf.org 
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org 

Subject: [bess] WG Adoption Poll for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-uasge-16


WG



This email starts a one-week WG adoption poll for 
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-uasge-16 [1]



A little bit of history: A previous version was adopted, completed WG last 
call, and publication requested as an Informational RFC. v15 of this draft was 
reviewed by the IESG and found to have a restrictive clause in the boilerplate. 
This has now been removed, but since that clause was inconsistent with the 
draft having been adopted as a WG document in the first place, we have been 
asked to go through the process again.



Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS mailing list.



This poll will close on Thursday 12th October.



Regards



Matthew



[1] draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-16 - SD-WAN edge nodes are commonly 
interconnected by multiple types of underlay networks owned and managed by 
different network 
providers.
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator

[Huaimo Chen]

Hi Everyone,

I support its adoption. It is useful.

Best Regards,
Huaimo

From: BESS  on behalf of slitkows.i...@gmail.com 

Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 12:39 PM
To: bess@ietf.org 
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator


Hello,



This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator-05 [1].

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.



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 will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.

Currently, there is one IPR disclosure against this document.

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.



This poll for adoption closes on May 31th



Regards,

Matthew and Stephane



[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-bess-sbfd-discriminator/
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05

[Huaimo Chen]

Hi Everyone,

I support the publication of this draft.

Best Regards,
Huaimo

From: BESS  on behalf of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 

Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 7:05 AM
To: bess@ietf.org 
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call and IPR Poll for draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05


This email starts a two-week working group last call for 
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05 [1]



Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please 
indicate if you support publishing the draft as an Informational RFC.



This poll runs until the 10th October 2022



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. The document won't progress without answers from all the 
authors and contributors.

There are currently two IPR disclosures.





Thank you,

Matthew & Stephane





[1]  
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-05






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

Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03

[Huaimo Chen]

Hi Everyone,

I support the adoption.

Best Regards,
Huaimo

From: BESS  On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 5:37 AM
To: draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for 
draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03



[External Email. Be cautious of content]



Hello,



This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03 [1].



Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.



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 will not  progress 
without answers from all of the authors and contributors.



Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.



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.



This poll for adoption closes on April 27th 2021.



Regards,

Matthew and Stephane





[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh/




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

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-07

[Huaimo Chen]

Support its adoption.

Best Regards,
Huaimo

From: BESS  on behalf of slitkows.i...@gmail.com 

Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 8:13 AM
To: bess@ietf.org 
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for 
draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-07


Hello,



This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for 
draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage-07 [1] ..



Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.



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.

Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.



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.



This poll for adoption closes on 7th July 2020.



Regards,

Matthew and Stephane



[1] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage/




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

Re: [bess] [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier" to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage?

[Huaimo Chen]

Hi Linda,

It seems that using another SAFI is a possible solution.

Best Regards,
Huaimo

From: Linda Dunbar 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 12:54 AM
To: Huaimo Chen ; i...@ietf.org 
Cc: bess@ietf.org 
Subject: RE: [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier" 
to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage?


Huaimo,



Thank you very much for the suggestion.

Do you mean using the similar approach as VPN Label carried by NLRI Path 
Attribute [RFC8277] for SDWAN Segmentation Identifier?

If yes, the UPDATE message should not use the MPLS VPN SAFI (=128) to avoid 
confusion, right?



Linda



From: Huaimo Chen 
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 6:45 PM
To: Linda Dunbar ; i...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier" 
to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage?



Hi Linda,



It seems that a label may be used as an "Identifier" to differentiate 
SD-WAN Segmentation.



Best Regards,

Huaimo



From: Idr mailto:idr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Linda Dunbar mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 1:22 PM
To: i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org> mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
Cc: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier" to 
differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage?



BGP Experts,



Do you know if  there is any problem of using  Private AS as  "Identifier" to 
differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation? Here is the discussion in BESS WG. Want to 
get IDR WG feedbacks for this question.



Thank you.

Linda



From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 11:54 AM
To: Najem, Basil mailto:basil.na...@bell.ca>>; 
bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Cc: 
draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org>
Subject: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier" to 
differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage?



Based on Basil’s comment on needing an identifier to differentiate SDWAN 
instances, I added a section to  draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage . Want to 
hear people’s feedback.



3.1Requirements
3.1.1Supporting Multiple SDWAN Segmentations

The term “network segmentation” is used extensively in SDWAN deployment.. In 
general (and in this document), the “Network Segmentation” is referring to the 
process of dividing the network into logical sub-networks using isolation 
techniques on a forwarding device such as a switch, router, or firewall. For a 
homogeneous network, such as MPLS VPN or Layer 2 network, VRF or VLAN are used 
to separate network segments.

As SDWAN is an overlay network arching over multiple types of networks, it is 
important to have distinct identifiers to differentiate SDWAN network instances 
(or segmentations). When different SDWAN network segments do not have their own 
assigned AS numbers, a very easy way is to use Private AS numbers, in the range 
of 64512 to 65535, to differentiate different SDWAN segmentations. When using 
BGP to control the SDWAN networks, the Private AS numbers are carried by the 
BGP UPDATE messages to their corresponding RRs.



Greatly appreciate any feedback on this description.



Is there any scenario that Private AS cannot be used?



Thank you very much.



Linda Dunbar



From: Najem, Basil mailto:basil.na...@bell.ca>>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 3:02 PM
To: Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>; 
bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Cc: 
draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage description 
of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve SD-WAN Application Based Segmentation







Hi Linda;



The SD-WAN Segment is part of the SD-WAN fabric; in other words, there could be 
more than one Segment over a single underlay depending on the design and the 
business requirements.



Each Segment represents a single and an isolated L3 domain; therefore, I 
suggested that we may need to include the Segment ID in the BGP update messages 
in order to identify and build the routing the table for each Segment (based on 
the Segment ID).



Hope this helps.



Regards;



Basil





From: Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>
Sent: February-03-20 10:40 AM
To: Najem, Basil mailto:basil.na...@bell.ca>>; 
bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Cc: 
draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXT]RE: solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage 
description of usi

Re: [bess] [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier" to differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage?

[Huaimo Chen]

Hi Linda,

It seems that a label may be used as an "Identifier" to differentiate 
SD-WAN Segmentation.

Best Regards,
Huaimo

From: Idr  on behalf of Linda Dunbar 

Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 1:22 PM
To: i...@ietf.org 
Cc: bess@ietf.org 
Subject: [Idr] FW: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier" to 
differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage?


BGP Experts,



Do you know if  there is any problem of using  Private AS as  "Identifier" to 
differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation? Here is the discussion in BESS WG. Want to 
get IDR WG feedbacks for this question.



Thank you.

Linda



From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 11:54 AM
To: Najem, Basil ; bess@ietf.org
Cc: draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org
Subject: Is there any problem of using Private AS as "Identifier" to 
differentiate SD-WAN Segmentation for draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage?



Based on Basil’s comment on needing an identifier to differentiate SDWAN 
instances, I added a section to  draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage . Want to 
hear people’s feedback.



3.1Requirements
3.1.1Supporting Multiple SDWAN Segmentations

The term “network segmentation” is used extensively in SDWAN deployment.. In 
general (and in this document), the “Network Segmentation” is referring to the 
process of dividing the network into logical sub-networks using isolation 
techniques on a forwarding device such as a switch, router, or firewall. For a 
homogeneous network, such as MPLS VPN or Layer 2 network, VRF or VLAN are used 
to separate network segments.

As SDWAN is an overlay network arching over multiple types of networks, it is 
important to have distinct identifiers to differentiate SDWAN network instances 
(or segmentations). When different SDWAN network segments do not have their own 
assigned AS numbers, a very easy way is to use Private AS numbers, in the range 
of 64512 to 65535, to differentiate different SDWAN segmentations. When using 
BGP to control the SDWAN networks, the Private AS numbers are carried by the 
BGP UPDATE messages to their corresponding RRs.



Greatly appreciate any feedback on this description.



Is there any scenario that Private AS cannot be used?



Thank you very much.



Linda Dunbar



From: Najem, Basil mailto:basil.na...@bell.ca>>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 3:02 PM
To: Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>; 
bess@ietf.org
Cc: 
draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage description 
of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve SD-WAN Application Based Segmentation







Hi Linda;



The SD-WAN Segment is part of the SD-WAN fabric; in other words, there could be 
more than one Segment over a single underlay depending on the design and the 
business requirements.



Each Segment represents a single and an isolated L3 domain; therefore, I 
suggested that we may need to include the Segment ID in the BGP update messages 
in order to identify and build the routing the table for each Segment (based on 
the Segment ID).



Hope this helps.



Regards;



Basil





From: Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>
Sent: February-03-20 10:40 AM
To: Najem, Basil mailto:basil.na...@bell.ca>>; 
bess@ietf.org
Cc: 
draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org
Subject: [EXT]RE: solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage 
description of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve SD-WAN Application Based 
Segmentation



Basil,



Thank you very much for the comments.

Your suggested wording change will be incorporated in the next revision.



As for your suggestion of Segment and Segment ID of a SDWAN node (to be 
included in the BGP UPDATE), does the “Segment” mean the different Underlay?

In the figure below, C-PE1 has 3 WAN ports: 2 to MPLS network and 1 to Public 
Internet.

Do you mean C-PE1 has 3 WAN “segments”?

If not, can you elaborate more?



[cid:image001..png@01D5FDE3.587A47F0]





Thanks, Linda



From: Najem, Basil mailto:basil.na...@bell.ca>>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2020 5:48 PM
To: Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@futurewei.com>>; 
bess@ietf.org
Cc: 
draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-us...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: solicit feedback on draft-dunbar-bess-bgp-sdwan-usage description 
of using BGP UPDATE messages to achieve SD-WAN Application Based Segmentation





Hello Linda;



I haven’t gone through the entire document; however, I have the following quick 
comments



  1.  Regarding the following paragraph:



  1.  Augment of transport, which refers to utilizing overlay paths over 
different underlay networks. Very often there are multiple parallel overlay 
paths between any two SDWAN edges, some of which are private networ