Re: [bess] Some questions on E-Tree (RFC8317) services with VXLAN Encapsulation: is it feasible? is it necessary? is it under definition already?

2018-02-06 Thread Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Hi, Since the overlay tunnel encapsulation selected by NVO3 is GENEVE, IMHO we should only work on EVPN extensions for GENEVE. VXLAN does not have the required extensibility. And indeed, we are working on EVPN extensions for GENEVE that will address RFC8317 E-Tree services. SRv6 is a

[bess] Some questions on the  comparisons on PBB-EVPN (RFC7623)  and VXLAN EVPN

2018-02-06 Thread wang.yubao2
Hi folks, I have some questions on EVPN, would you kindly help to get an answer? Here are the questions: 1)The PBB EVPN per RFC7623 is defined in MPLS network only. and it seems that the PBB EVPN in VXLAN network or SRv6 network is not defined yet, so my question is how

Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df

2018-02-06 Thread Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Hi Stephane, We'll modify the text based on your comments below. Also for the benefit of the entire WG, based on Stephane's (and others) feedback, we will add an indication of the support of the ac-df draft in the DF Election extended community. The DF Election extended community is used by a

Re: [bess] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track

2018-02-06 Thread Eric C Rosen
On 1/24/2018 2:25 AM, stephane.litkow...@orange.com wrote: “The procedures of [RFC6625] do not clearly state how to handle an   S-PMSI A-D route if its NLRI contains wild cards, but its PTA   specifies "no tunnel info".” [SLI] I quickly ran over RFC6625, it does not mention anything