[bess] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with COMMENT)

2018-10-24 Thread Alvaro Retana
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

[bess] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with DISCUSS)

2018-10-24 Thread Suresh Krishnan
Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

[bess] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with COMMENT)

2018-10-24 Thread Spencer Dawkins
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

Re: [bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with COMMENT)

2018-10-24 Thread Ben Campbell
Excellent, thanks! > On Oct 24, 2018, at 4:29 PM, Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) > wrote: > > Ben, > > thank you for your review. > Regarding your substantive COMMENT: the disclosure came at the time of > WG adoption. The WG was thus specifically informed of that and given an >

Re: [bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with COMMENT)

2018-10-24 Thread Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
Ben, thank you for your review. Regarding your substantive COMMENT: the disclosure came at the time of WG adoption. The WG was thus specifically informed of that and given an extra week to (re)consider the positions already expressed. The existence of the IPR was also mentioned and referenced

[bess] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with COMMENT)

2018-10-24 Thread Ben Campbell
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

[bess] Revision of draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk posted

2018-10-24 Thread Donald Eastlake
Hi, Revised draft draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-01.txt has been posted to resolve the comments in the thread on the BESS WG mailing list with subject "EVPN FECs in LSP Ping". At the BESS WG meeting in Bangkok, I plan to ask that this draft become a WG draft. Please take a look. Thanks,

Re: [bess] A question regarding draft-wang-bess-evepn-control-word

2018-10-24 Thread John E Drake
Hi, Comment inline Yours Irrespectively, John From: BESS On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 11:57 AM To: Yutianpeng (Tim) Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-wang-bess-evpn-control-word.auth...@ietf.org; Wanghaibo (Rainsword) Subject: Re: [bess] A question regarding

Re: [bess] A question regarding draft-wang-bess-evepn-control-word

2018-10-24 Thread Alexander Vainshtein
Tim, Lots of thanks for your email, it really clarifies your approach. Regarding your proposal to “isolate” PEs that do not support the CW - I suspect this is not practical. EVPN-MPLS implementations are not REQUIRED to support usage of CW. Some EVPN-MPLS implementations that I am aware of

Re: [bess] A question regarding draft-wang-bess-evepn-control-word

2018-10-24 Thread Yutianpeng (Tim)
Hi Sasha, Thanks a lot for your advice. I agree with you that CW is not mandatory for all traffic, mainly unicast. This draft focuses on CW capability advertisement and is applicable to traffic needs CW processing. So far BUM should be not relevant to this draft. (Multicast might need CW

[bess] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

2018-10-24 Thread Mirja Kühlewind
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [bess] LxVPN and EVPN yang models

2018-10-24 Thread Lizhenbin
Hi Stephane, These comments truly make sense. There should be more synchronization and consistency between these Yang models. And during the course of design of different Yang models, Patrice and other team members proposed to define the common VPN Yang components shared between different Yang

Re: [bess] A question regarding draft-wang-bess-evepn-control-word

2018-10-24 Thread Wanghaibo (Rainsword)
Dear Sasha, Thanks for your advice. Your understanding is correct. Regarding your question, I don't think that all BUM traffic does not need a control word. First of all, for broadcast traffic, there is really no need for a control word. Secondly, for unknown unicast traffic, perhaps there is

Re: [bess] A question regarding draft-wang-bess-evepn-control-word

2018-10-24 Thread Alexander Vainshtein
Tim, Lots of thanks for sharing your views. Unfortunately, I doubt the approach that you propose: always use or do not use CW in the same EVI. The problem, as I see it is that known unicast and BUM traffic may be handled differently when it comes to EVPN encapsulation: 1. Section 18 of