Thanks for this document. I was hard-pushed to find anything to talk
about, so I guess you did a good job or I am losing my touch.
The points below are pretty minor, but they will get pulled up in
IETF last call reviews, so I think we should fix them in a new
revision before i start last call.
Hi BESS WG,
During the final stages of processing draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn the authors
requested some changes to section 6.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface
Because these changes are a little more than editorial in nature, I want to run
them passed the working group.
Please comment on this
IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
AD review
=
Thanks for this document. I was hard-pushed to find anything to talk
about, so I guess you did a good job or I am losing my touch.
The points below are pretty minor, but they will get pulled up in
IETF
By the way, this draft is an update of the previous draft
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-l3vpn-prefix-orf-00).
-Original Message-
From: Xuxiaohu
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:00 AM
To: bess@ietf.org
Subject: FW: New Version Notification for
Any comments and suggestions are welcome.
Best regards,
Xiaohu
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:29 PM
To: Brendan Fee; Xuxiaohu; Brendan Fee; Susan Hares; Yongbing Fan; Xuxiaohu;
Truman Boyes;
Having seen Adrian's email on the suggested changes (mux'ing VLANs on the same
IMET) here's a nit-pic _or_ a clarifying question depending how one sees it:
Let me see whether I parse it correctly:
a) we are talking about BUM P-Tunnels
b) the text clarifies that multiple VLANs can be
