Re: [bess] Comments about draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-01
Hi Donald, -Original Message- From: Donald Eastlake Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 at 6:59 PM To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" Cc: "bess@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 9:12 PM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) wrote: > > 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? Well, once a draft is posted, it can't be changed, so the currently posted -01 won't change but the -02 version that is being worked on and is not yet posted eliminates the alternative encapsulation. [JORGE] :-) of course. I misunderstood your answer. Sounds good then. Thank you! Thanks, Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA d3e...@gmail.com > Thanks. > Jorge > > > -Original Message- > From: Donald Eastlake > Date: Monday, November 5, 2018 at 8:48 PM > To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" > Cc: "bess@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) 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
Re: [bess] Comments about draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-01
Hi Jorge, On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 9:12 PM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) wrote: > > 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? Well, once a draft is posted, it can't be changed, so the currently posted -01 won't change but the -02 version that is being worked on and is not yet posted eliminates 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 > Thanks. > Jorge > > > -Original Message- > From: Donald Eastlake > Date: Monday, November 5, 2018 at 8:48 PM > To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" > Cc: "bess@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) 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
Re: [bess] Comments about draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-01
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 Date: Monday, November 5, 2018 at 8:48 PM To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" Cc: "bess@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) 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
Re: [bess] 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) 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
[bess] Comments about draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-01
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: - 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. - 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? Thank you. Jorge ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
