Re: [bess] Is draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking compatible to all potential use cases?

Dear Authors, Thanks. Then let me abuse your attention and fill another request for the same subject. draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services has been developed in such a way that it does not need any changes in all services developed before, including RFC7432, RFC4364, RFC4659, and RFC8950. The only new

Re: [bess] Is draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking compatible to all potential use cases?

Hi Eduard, Sounds like a reasonable request to me. We’ll look into it for the next version. Thank you! Jorge From: Vasilenko Eduard Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:09 PM To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: Is draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-in

[bess] Is draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking compatible to all potential use cases?

Dear Authors, You have normative references only for RFC7432 and RFC4364 types of services. RFC4659 and RFC8950 are missing in normative and informative. Why? Especially when you effectively included th

[bess] How often "Prefix-SID TLV" is needed? (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services question)

Dear Authors, Ordinary BGP services use "BGP Path Attributes" (with MP_REACH_NLRI and Extended Communities inside Path Attribute). SRv6 needs additionally to explain the structure of SID. "BGP Prefix SID TLV" was chosen for this task. This TLV is at the same BGP level, not inside Path Attribute.