On 1/16/2018 11:29 AM, Eric C Rosen wrote:
“If the LIR-pF flag is set in a given PTA, the LIR flag of that PTA
SHOULD also be set.”
[SLI] Why not using a MUST ?
[Eric] If all the PEs support the LIR-pF flag, the procedures will
work as intended even if the LIR flag is not set. So I don't
Hi,
> In that case, two PEs in the same ES supporting type=255 should rely on local
> policy to decide what to.
If type=255 is used, the local policy should be applied and it becomes the job
of the operator to ensure that the policy is the same everywhere.
> And two PEs in the same ES
Thanks for your explanations.
So the extensions is based on GENEVE and RFC8317,
Glad to see your working on EVPN extensions for GENEVE in the future.
I have mixed GENEVE with VXLAN, and I didn't see a leaf-label extension in
GENEVE, so I asked the question.
I get the point now,
Best
Hi Stephane,
When a new type comes up, we normally encourage people to publish a draft and
register a temporary type with IANA, so that others can interop. Having said
that, I think your idea is good and we could reserve type=255 for
vendor-specific or experimental purposes, so that people can
Hi Jorge,
This perfectly fills my comment.
Speaking as doc shepherd and WG member, I think it could make sense to have a
vendor specific DF election type allocated. This would allow a vendor to
develop a specific algorithm to address a niche use case, not supported by
other vendors.
What do
