Re: [bess] Discussion about F (Flow label) bit of draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis  section 7.11

2023-04-27 Thread wang.yubao2
Hi Jorge, Thank you for your response. I talk about EVPN VPLS per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-07#name-evpn-layer-2-attributes-ext. That section of rfc7432bis extends L2-Attr EC (which is defined in EVPN VPWS) to EVPN VPLS. And my case 2 taks

Re: [bess] Last Call: (EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segment) to Proposed Standard

2023-04-27 Thread Alexander Vainshtein
Jorge, Lots of thanks for your response. It seems we are mainly on the same page. It would be nice if you could clarify the point about "a group of PW that share the same pair of unidirectional LSPs" and mention the need to identify the ingress LSP from which the PW packets have been received

Re: [bess] Discussion about F (Flow label) bit of draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis  section 7.11

2023-04-27 Thread Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Hi Yubao, Since you are referring to the A-D per EVI route signaling the F bit, I assume you talk about EVPN VPWS, however you mention MAC-VRF, so that’s confusing. The case you are describing – propagation of the L2-attributes extended community when readvertising the A-D per EVI or IMET route

Re: [bess] Last Call: (EVPN Virtual Ethernet Segment) to Proposed Standard

2023-04-27 Thread Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
Hi Sasha, I think the misunderstanding could be solved if we worded the association to the virtual ES differently. The association is really to a group of PWs that share the same unidirectional LSP pair (rather than to the LSP, which I can see why is confusing). The multi-homing procedures are

[bess] Request for review of draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-args

2023-04-27 Thread Ketan Talaulikar
Hello All, We had presented https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-args/ at the IETF 116. The slides are available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/materials/slides-116-bess-draft-trr-bess-srv6-args-00.pdf Since this draft aims to fix some issues in the RFC9252