Luc Andre:
I’m pleased to see your issue of tie-breaking that pushes for specific order
and definitions in the DF election. I also would suggest you have a mandated
algorithm and define whether policy change this mandatory algorithm.
Since you are in the middle of defining the revised
> On 11 Nov 2020, at 16:32, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote:
>
> Zzh> I see what you mean. Perhaps we can separate the one-octet “Next Header”
> from the existing IP “Next Header” space so that the first nibble is always
> ? That gives us 16 types of “Next Header” – or we only need to make
Hi Authors,
I have the following comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-03
version of the draft.
Please see below.
Thanks,
Suresh
4.1. No-Propagation-Mode
This is the default mode of operation.
Comment:
We must not have default mode of operation which could result in loops.
So th
Hi Stéphane, Jorge,
On the issue of tie-breaking, I would agree with Stéphane.
It is too easy for peering PEs to be misconfigured / in disagreement as to
Hi or Lo and this should be signaled if at least in an error reporting
capacity.
I would propose to go even further. This DF Election algo
Hello All,
I submitted a draft to propose an approach to improve EVPN high scalability,
faster network convergence, and reduced operational complexity, we call it
light-weighted EVPNs because of these advantages.
The newest update of it can be found at
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-bes
This poll has now concluded.
I believe there is consensus to adopt the draft as a BESS WG draft.
Authors: Please upload a new version with the name
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-00
Regards
Matthew
From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Date: Monday, 2 November 2020 at 12:42
To: bess@ietf.org
