Support
Regards
Hooman
From: BESS On Behalf Of Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
US/Mountain View)
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 11:17 AM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) ; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] Second WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming-02
I fully support the publication of
Support.
Regards,
Nabeel
> On Sep 24, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
> wrote:
>
> I fully support the publication of this document.
> It should have been an RFC long time back. I don’t understand why it took so
> long.
>
> Nokia has an implementation of this d
Yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
> On Sep 24, 2018, at 11:21, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
> wrote:
>
> Agreed.
>
> From: BESS on behalf of Jorge Rabadan
>
> Date: Monday, 24 September 2018 at 17:16
> To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" , "bess@ietf.org"
>
> Subject: Re: [bess] Second W
Agreed.
From: BESS on behalf of Jorge Rabadan
Date: Monday, 24 September 2018 at 17:16
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" , "bess@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [bess] Second WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming-02
I fully support the publication of this document.
It should have been an R
I fully support the publication of this document.
It should have been an RFC long time back. I don’t understand why it took so
long.
Nokia has an implementation of this draft in SROS.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: BESS on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
Date: Monday, September 24, 2018 at 1:04
All
Since we have received a recent IPR declaration on this draft and the first WG
last call was so long ago, we are running a second last call to reaffirm WG
consensus to publish the draft as an RFC.
Therefore, this email begins a two-week working group last call for
draft-ietf-bess-vpls-mult
Jorge,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
As Donald has mentioned, 7432 simply left Ethernet service OAM out of scope, so
there are quite a few things tbat require specification in this area..
Regards
Thumb typed by Sasha Vainshtein
From: Rabadan, Jorge (N
Sasha,
That is an excellent point. I agree the text should say that any MEP/MIP MAC
addresses local to the PE should be advertised in EVPN.
I would even add that, since those MACs are not subject to mobility, the PE
should advertise them as “static”, i.e., with sticky bit set.
Thanks.
Jorge
F
