Support as a co-author. I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
BTW, a minor editor comment was received to indicate the allocation policy for
multicast flags in IANA section to be FCFS. This comment will be incorporated
in the next rev.
Cheers,
Ali
From: BESS on behalf of
Support, implementation exist. Not aware of undisclosed IPR
Thanks,
Samir
From: BESS on behalf of "stephane.litkow...@orange.com"
Date: Monday, June 17, 2019 at 1:56 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
Subject: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for
Support, I am unaware of any undisclosed IPR.
Thanks,
Wen
From: BESS on behalf of Krzysztof Szarkowicz
Date: Monday, June 24, 2019 at 4:04 PM
To: ""
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" , "bess@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.
Title : Preference-based EVPN DF Election
Authors : Jorge Rabadan
Senthil Sathappan
Hi Shunwan,
I’ve just re-checked RFC5539, and the referenced section 3 of RFC2545 and I can
find nothing about using VPN-IPv6 for encoding the next-hop. Section 3 of
RFC5539 is very clear that it’s a 16-byte GU IPv6 address or 32-bytes with a GU
and LL address.
Can you point me to the text
Hi Ian,
Thanks for your response!
The opinion I have collected is:
Per RFC4634, the IPv4-VPN routes shall carry the V4 Next-hop, beginning with an
8-octet RD and ending with a 4-octet IPv4 address.
Per RFC4659, the IPv6-VPN routes shall carry the V6 Next-hop, beginning with an
8-octet RD and
