Hi Folks,
Many thanks for these outcomes and resolution.
I’ll add a comment on the datatracker for the loop-protect draft and I’ll
proceed with the adoption of the isid-cmacflush.
Stephane
From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Sent: samedi 12 octobre 2019 02:32
To: bess-cha...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Cc: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) ; Ali
Sajassi (sajassi)
Subject: Resolutions on draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect &
Hi Stephane,
Jorge and I had a meeting to discuss our comments on the following two drafts
that are going through WG call:
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snr-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-06>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snr-bess-pbb-evpn-isid-cmacflush-06
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect/>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect/
and reached the following resolutions:
On isid-cmacflush, we agreed to proceed with this draft and since we don’t want
to have two separate solutions for I-SID flushing in PBB-EVPN, we decided to
remove the section on I-SID flushing in virtual-eth-segment. The main factor
for this decision was the fact that isid-cmacflush draft has been implemented
by at least one vendor; whereas, the isid flusing section in
virtual-eth-segment draft has not been implemented by any vendor to best of our
knowledge even though the draft at large has been implemented by many vendors.
If any of the co-authors or WG individual has any comment about this, please
speak up, otherwise we’ll remove the appropriate section.
On loop-protect draft, we agreed on holding its WG adoption at this time and
extend mac mobility in rfc7432bis to cover loops. The main factor for this
decision was the fact that the detection mechanism for loop-protect draft is
the same as mac-duplicate detection mechanism in section 15.1 of RFC 7432. So,
we agreed we can build based on that and add some paragraphs to describe the
action of loop protection. Once rfc7432bis is out, we would like to encourage
people to read it and, unless there is feedback against it, the loop-protect
draft will be abandoned. If there is feedback stating 7432bis is not enough for
loop protection, at that time we can discuss if the loop-protect draft needs to
be resumed and extended or if a new draft is needed.
Regards,
Ali & Jorge
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess