Hi Jorge,
Thanks for these -- your proposals all sound good.
With respect to your question about the "dummy MAC", I think I was
referring to the AS-MAC (but I'm not 100% sure). I don't think there's
anything about that topic that is critical to cover in the security
considerations, so we should
Thank you Jorge!!
Alvaro.
On March 8, 2021 at 2:49:18 PM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) (
jorge.raba...@nokia.com) wrote:
Hi Alvaro,
Thank you very much for reviewing!
Will incorporate the changes in the next revision.
Please see in-line with [jorge].
Jorge
---
Thanks Luc for your comment. I would wait for Stephanes comment as well and
address it all together.
Mankamana
From: BESS on behalf of "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
US/Mountain View)"
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 at 8:04 AM
To: Luc André Burdet ,
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org"
Cc
Thanks, Jorge!
Barry
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 2:49 PM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain
View) wrote:
>
> Hi Barry,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for the review.
>
> I made all the changes that you suggested, they will be there in the next
> version.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> -
Hi Benjamin,
Thanks for the thorough review.
Please see my comments in-line with [jorge]. I’ll incorporate the changes in
the next version.
Thx
Jorge
-
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
Date: Wed
Hi Barry,
Thank you very much for the review.
I made all the changes that you suggested, they will be there in the next
version.
Thanks!
Jorge
---
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 4:20 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: dr
Hi Alvaro,
Thank you very much for reviewing!
Will incorporate the changes in the next revision.
Please see in-line with [jorge].
Jorge
From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracke
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 : Per multicast flow Designated Forwarder Election for
EVPN
Authors : Ali Sajassi
Hi Luc,
Sounds good, we are in synch then. Stephane, hope you are good too.
If so, I’ll work on the changes and publish soon.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: Luc Andre Burdet (lburdet)
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 at 6:12 PM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) , Luc
André Burdet , slitkows.i...@g
Hi Jorge,
Sorry for the imprecise language, this was indeed about Highest-Preference vs.
Lowest-Preference algo.
Seems we can agree on Option 2.
I think my wording below betrayed what my preference was 😉 and option 2 is
definitely the best approach in my book (easiest backward-compatibility and
Luc,
About this:
“7. Section 9.1.2 is not really exposing the problem fully. With the
topology provided, the simplest way for PE2 to receive all traffic is to simply
disable SMET route and IMET route will pull the multicast traffic.
I think the point this section is trying to make is that
Hi Luc,
Thanks for your email.
A few comments:
1. You mention the lowest-ip vs highest-ip debate, but I don’t think there
is any debate about the PE’s IP. In the document the PE’s IP is used as a last
resort tie-breaker, and it is always the lowest IP the one chosen assuming
Preference and
12 matches
Mail list logo
