Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

The whole draft complicates any data plane we defined so far and since there is simpler solutions I don’t support this proposal. Arguments have been given as to why. From: Haoweiguo mailto:haowei...@huawei.com>> Date: Friday 13 November 2015 at 02:44 To: Wim Henderickx mailto:wim.henderi...@alca

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

Hi Wim, It is used for layer 3 VPN CE device to visit IP based overlay data center network. For layer 3 traffic forwarding, the MAC address in VXLAN/NVGRE is restricted only in data center inside domain. For the traffic from data center inside to outside, the inner MAC address(destination MAC

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

In-line with WH> From: "thomas.mo...@orange.com" mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>> Organization: Orange Date: Thursday 12 November 2015 at 17:46 To: Wim Henderickx mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>>, "bess@ietf.org" mailto:bess@ietf.o

[bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-03

Hi! I just finished reading this document. As mentioned by the WG chairs at the meeting in Yokohama, the technology in bess can be complex and hard to penetrate for the average (or novice) reader. While the target of documents like this one is not always the average (or novice) reader, it is

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

Wim, (below) 2015-11-12, Henderickx, Wim (Wim): Henderickx, Wim (Wim): I don’t support the adoption of this draft as a WG. There is a major flaw in this proposal: Basically the encapsulation of VXLAN/NVGRE is incompatible with MPLS IP-VPNs. VXLAN/NVGRE contains a MAC address and IP-VPNs don’

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

From: "thomas.mo...@orange.com" mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>> Organization: Orange Date: Thursday 12 November 2015 at 16:24 To: "bess@ietf.org" mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, Wim Henderickx mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>> Subject: Re

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

Hi Wim, Thanks for your feedback. With my co-chair hat, let met ask a few questions for the sake of well understanding the issue you raise. Henderickx, Wim (Wim): I don’t support the adoption of this draft as a WG. There is a major flaw in this proposal: Basically the encapsulation of VXLAN/

Re: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'

Hi John, 2015-11-12, John E Drake: Why do you think it should be documented in Eric's draft rather than in the EVPN Overlay draft? The issue applies beyond the context of E-VPN overlay specs, and exist in any context where different kinds of MPLS(/x) encaps can be mixed (E-VPN non-overlay,

Re: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'

Thomas (and copying Eric), Why do you think it should be documented in Eric's draft rather than in the EVPN Overlay draft? Yours Irrespectively, John > -Original Message- > From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > thomas.mo...@orange.com > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2

[bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

I don’t support the adoption of this draft as a WG. There is a major flaw in this proposal: Basically the encapsulation of VXLAN/NVGRE is incompatible with MPLS IP-VPNs. VXLAN/NVGRE contains a MAC address and IP-VPNs don’t. The draft does not talk about any of this and introduces a lot of comple

Re: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'

Weiguo, You're welcome. Yours Irrespectively, John From: Haoweiguo [mailto:haowei...@huawei.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 8:17 PM To: John E Drake; Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge); saja...@cisco.com Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: RE: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02' Jo

[bess] IPR issue resulting in an *Extended* Poll for adoption: draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-option

Hi working group, IPR [1] has been disclosed on draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc during the call for adoption (2015-10-26). We regret that this disclosure came this late in the process, and we have to let the working group comment on this call with full awareness of existing IPR. This

Re: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'

HI John, Weiguo, John E Drake : It is needed in order to distinguish between an advertising node that only supports non-MPLS encapsulations and one that supports MPLS and non-MPLS encapsulations. An advertising node that only supports MPLS encapsulation does not need to advertise anything.