Hi Yubao,
Thanks for the comment. I think more and have not understood too how
"mass-withdraw" is possible with single-homed sites.
Section 5 instructs us to use ESI=0 for single-homed sites.
EVI could have many Ethernet Segments connected on 1 PE, all would be with
ESI=0 for single-homed.
Then
Hi Eduard,
I don't think an Ethernet A-D per ES route with a zero ESI is better to use,
Because each single-homed CE is an individual ES,
that's why MAC mobility happens between two zero ESIs (for different
single-homed ethernet segments)
but not happens between the same ESI (local
Hi Francesca
Thanks for comment. I apologies for missing this email. Please find inline
comment.
Mankamana
From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker
Date: Thursday, October 28, 2021 at 7:12 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
,
Hi Rob,
Thanks for comment. Sorry, some how my outlook messed and this email was lost.
Please find inline. There is one modification based on your comment. Please
let me know if change text looks ok to you. I will push the new revision.
Mankamana
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker
Date:
Hi Murray,
new version uploaded where NV and NVO removed since they were not
used. Please let me know if you have any comment.
Mankamana
On 11/22/21 2:14 AM, slitkows.i...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Murray,
>
>> There's an IPR disclosure on this document. In the shepherd writeup, where
>> a
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 Eric,
Please let me know if explanation are acceptable.
Mankamana
From: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 12:06 PM
To: Erik Kline , The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org
, bess-cha...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org , slitkows.i...@gmail.com
Hi Alvaro,
while i wait for PIM working group to provide and submit the next revision this
Friday. I have question about one of the comment. Please let me know if these
changes are something you expecting.
* IGMP Join changes to Membership Report
* IGMP Join Sync changes to Membership
Hi Yuya,
Thanks.
Your explanation looks reasonable because section 8.2:
" If no other PE had advertised an Ethernet A-D route for the same segment,
then the PE that received the withdrawal simply invalidates the MAC entries for
that segment."
Does not say "MUST" or "SHOULD".
But the word "may"
