Hi Rob,
I have posted a -09 revision which should resolve your COMMENTs.
Thanks,
Donald
===
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 6:58 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton)
wrote:
>
Hi Eric,
I have posted revision -09 which should resolve your COMMENTs except
possible that I decided not to include a statement that EVPN OAM MAY use
IOAM or the like. As I say, there are lots of things it MAY use...
Thanks,
Donald
===
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508
Hi John,
I've posted -09 which should resolve your DISCUSS and COMMENTs.
Thanks,
Donald
===
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 1:38 PM John Scudder wrote:
> Thanks
Hi Patrice
Makes sense. That is a very important use case for for operators for SHD,
SHN scenario for more granular per flow versus per VLAN DF election and
load balancing.
So this draft is an optimization for SHD, SHN per flow load balancing
updating RFC 7432, similar to RFC 8584 MHD, MHN optim
This revision has changes to resolve IESG comments and one DISCUSS,
Thanks,
Donald
===
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:27 PM wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is
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 : EVPN Operations, Administration and Maintenance
Requirements and Framework
Authors : Samer Salam
Support the adoption.
Thanks,
Jim Uttaro
From: BESS On Behalf Of Aparna Pattekar (apjoshi)
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 4:17 PM
To: slitkows.i...@gmail.com
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for
draft-brissette-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto
Support the adoption
And as shared John’s concern, the new text looks like fixing the problem
Thank for having updated the document
-éric
From: iesg on behalf of John Scudder
Date: Monday, 12 April 2021 at 19:39
To: Donald Eastlake
Cc: Matthew Bocci , "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
, "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-fr.
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: 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
Thanks for hopping threads, I shoulda caught that last one. Your proposed
change looks fine, I’ll remove my DISCUSS in anticipation of you issuing a new
version. (One nit on your new text, “in order maximize” should be “in order to
maximize”.)
—John
On Apr 12, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Donald Eastlake
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 10:04 PM John Scudder via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-08: Discuss
>
> ...
>
> --
> DISCUSS:
As co-author I support adoption.
I am aware of an IPR which is in process of being disclosed.
Regards,
Dan
From: BESS on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com"
Date: Monday, March 29, 2021 at 3:13 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org"
Subject: [EXT][bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for
draft-brissette-bess-evpn
Hi WG,
We got final updates from authors on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy.
I'm opening a new short Working Group Last Call (to be closed on 4/19) to
get any last comments before moving the document to IESG.
Feel free to send comments to the list before next Monday.
Thanks,
St
Hi Gyan,
RFC8584 talks about all-active which sometime is referred as active-active per
flow where a host is reachable via both MH PE.
The L2GW protocol draft is completely different. It is about single-active per
flow load balancing where a host is reachable via a single MH PE at a time.
Regar
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 : IGMP and MLD Proxy for EVPN
Authors : Ali Sajassi
Samir Thoria
Hi,
Here is my review of the document:
Section 2.2:
s/the DCB MUST not intersect/the DCB MUST NOT intersect/
I don't fully understand the purpose of the second part of the sentence :
"or those routers MUST be
considered as part of the "domain"."
I think the DCB must not intersect with any o
Hi authors,
I have completed my shepherd's write up of the document.
However, there is a normative reference to vES draft which we haven't closed
yet. I'll hold on the doc, until we have moved forward vES. It should be closed
soon I think. We'll send both together to IESG.
Thanks for your under
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 : EVPN Multi-Homing Extensions for Split Horizon
Filtering
Authors : Jorge Rabadan
18 matches
Mail list logo
