Re: [bess] WG adoption poll - draft-fang-l3vpn-virtual-pe-05

For me the key question we should answer is if it does help developers implement vPE even if there is no new protocol extensions required. From: Benson Schliesser mailto:bens...@queuefull.net>> Date: Thursday 23 October 2014 17:02 To: Thomas Morin mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>> Cc: L3VPN mailto

Re: [bess] Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN

As I stated in the IDR meeting my observation is that we require to many AFI/SAFI(s) for all flow spec functions. Flow spec in general is providing match criteria¹s with related actions. Given the proposal on Flowspec for L2 is new we should look at the bigger picture. In My view we need a mechanis

Re: [bess] 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN

ec >can be designed, but it maybe a more harder work in IDR. >Thanks >weiguo > > >发件人: BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) >[wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] >发送时间: 2014年11月14日 7:55 >收件人: Thomas Morin; BESS >抄送: ID

Re: [bess] 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN

, "Haoweiguo" wrote: >How to achieve compatability with current existed flowspec[RFC5575] >applications? >Thanks >weiguo > >________________ >发件人: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] >发送时间: 2014年11月14日 8:14 >收件人: Haoweiguo;

Re: [bess] 答复: 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN

s comments on your proposal. >Thanks >weiguo > >____________ >发件人: BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) >[wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] >发送时间: 2014年11月14日 8:27 >收件人: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS >抄送: IDR Chairs >主题: Re: [bes

Re: [bess] 答复: 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN

limitation when deploying RTC. > >Best regards, >Mach > >> -Original Message- >> From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Haoweiguo >> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 8:42 AM >> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Thomas Morin; BESS >> Cc: IDR

Re: [bess] 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN

merge into >one single draft or evolve separately? I would like to hear WG co-chairs >and experts opinion on this point. >Thanks >weiguo > >From: Bertrand Duvivier (bduvivie) [bduvi...@cisco.com] >Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 16:00 >

Re: [bess] A comment and question for the draft "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-00"

The reason we did this is providing the most flexibility because depending on the use case you need one and not the other. Hence we optimised for flexibility. From: Haoweiguo mailto:haowei...@huawei.com>> Date: Tuesday 25 November 2014 10:21 To: "bess@ietf.org" mailto:bess@

Re: [bess] A comment and question for the draft "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-00"

t-forwarding-00" Precisely. Yours Irrespectively, John From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge) Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 9:41 AM To: Haoweiguo; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>; saja...@cisco.com<mailto:saja

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-rabadan-bess-dci-evpn-overlay

I am not aware of IPR related to this draft >>Jorge >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Thomas Morin >>Organization: Orange >>Date: Friday, December 5, 2014 at 5:13 AM >>To: "bess@ietf.org" >>Cc: "draft-rabadan-bess-dci-evpn-over...@tools.ietf.org" >> >>Subject: [bess] Poll for adoption: d

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-rabadan-bess-dci-evpn-overlay

+ support adoption of the draft as WG On 05/12/14 17:31, "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" wrote: >I am not aware of IPR related to this draft > > >>>Jorge >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Thomas Morin >>>Organization: Orange &g

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement

I support the adoption of this draft as WG given the use case it enables. I am not aware of IPR related to this draft On 07/01/15 12:01, "Martin Vigoureux" wrote: >Hello working group, > >This email starts a two-week poll on adopting >draft-rabadan-l2vpn-evpn-prefix-advertisement [1] as a workin

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction

Support adoption of the draft as WG doc Not aware of IPR related to this draft On 07/01/15 12:06, "Martin Vigoureux" wrote: >Hello working group, > >This email starts a two-week poll on adopting >draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-fib-reduction [1] as a working group item. > >Please send comments to

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-morin-bess-multicast-damping

Support this is a useful feature to improve multicast deployments On 27/01/15 09:24, "Dolganow, Andrew (Andrew)" wrote: >Support, > >Andrew > >On 2015-01-26, 6:47 PM, "Martin Vigoureux" wrote: > >>Hello working group, >> >>This email starts a two-week poll on adopting >>draft-morin-bess-multicas

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-etree

Support as a co-author, not aware of IPR related to this draft On 02/02/15 15:02, "Thomas Morin" wrote: >Hello working group, > >This email starts a two-week poll on adopting >draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-etree-00 [1] as a working group item. > >Please send comments to the list and state if you suppo

Re: [bess] EVPN Draft Comments

To add to what John said, the remote NH proposal would be less efficient than the EVPN draft in terms of BGP messaging. On 03/02/15 13:47, "John E Drake" wrote: >Sue, > >I think we have a tempest in a teapot. > >The EVPN Overlay draft >(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-00

Re: [bess] ARP ND draft

For this case you should sent a GARP with the new MAC/IP On 25/03/15 18:56, "Antoni Przygienda" wrote: >> > b)It is worth explaining what is suggested behavior if eVPN advertises >> > the same IP with multiple MACs and what happens when e.g. the served >> > MAC vanishes >> > >> Doesn't the EV

Re: [bess] ARP ND draft

complished things. The first group is less crowded. >~~~ Mark Twain > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 6:01 AM >> To: Antoni Przygienda; Erik Nordmark; Rabadan, Jorge (

Re: [bess] ARP ND draft

015 at 11:18 PM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: We will update the draft to highlight the IPv6 anycast behaviour better as pointed out by RObert. In IPv4 there is no anycast behaviour and as such there should be one option possible. On 30/03/15 04

Re: [bess] ARP ND draft

gt;> wrote: Hi Wim, What makes you say that in IPv4 there is no anycast ? All anycase I have played so far is IPv4 :) Cheers, r. On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: We will update the draft to highlight the IPv6

Re: [bess] ARP ND draft

Wim, What makes you say that in IPv4 there is no anycast ? All anycase I have played so far is IPv4 :) Cheers, r. On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: We will update the draft to highlight the IPv6 anycast behavio

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-etree

Support as co-author, not aware on IPR related to this draft On 19/05/15 12:22, "Martin Vigoureux" wrote: >Hello working group, > >This email starts a two-week poll on adopting >draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-etree [1] as a working group item. > >Please send comments to the list and state if you su

Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming

Not aware of IPR related to this draft On 12/06/15 17:09, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" wrote: >Hello > >this email starts a Working Group Last Call on >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-vpls-multihoming >which is considered mature and ready for a last working group review. >

[bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws

My comment in the meeting related to the entropy label is that the indication in the new EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community is not necessary since the LSP(s) signalling protocols (LDP/RSVP – IGPs/BGP being extended as we speak) are signalling this capability and can be used to know if th

Re: [bess] draft-fm-bess-service-chaining

Adding the bess wg From: Wim Henderickx Date: Wednesday 22 July 2015 19:24 To: "draft-fm-bess-service-chain...@tools.ietf.org" Subject: draft-fm-bess-service-chaining While I support to see this work progress I have the following remarks whil

Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-morin-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

Not aware of IPR related to this draft On 02/10/15 12:29, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" wrote: >Hello working group, > >This email starts a two-week poll on adopting >draft-morin-bess-mvpn-fast-failover [1] as a working group item. > >Please send comments to the list and state if you su

[bess] draft-morin-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

We found out that there exist IPR related to this draft. We are in the process of disclosing this asap. ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] IPR related to draft-morin-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

Attached is the IPR we disclosed recetnly related to this draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2697/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2696/ ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] draft-morin-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

Besides the below IPR I am not aware of any other IP related to this draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2697/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2696/ ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

[bess] draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-l3vpn- multihoming-00.txt

Maybe good to clarify in this draft which nodes are involved in EVPN from the drawing on p3 in https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-bess-11.pdf? Did I understood correctly in the meeting that this is required between all SPE(s), if so why? ___

Re: [bess] draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-l3vpn- multihoming-00.txt

that a CE multi-home to would also use EVPN procedures. Now it looks like there is no “regular” L3VPN – everything is EVPN. Jeffrey From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 2:25 PM To: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Subject:

Re: [bess] draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-l3vpn- multihoming-00.txt

@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-l3vpn- multihoming-00.txt My understanding is that an IP-VPN PE would not be able take advantage of “mass-withdraw”? From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 2:42 PM To: Jeffr

Re: [bess] draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-l3vpn- multihoming-00.txt

hernet with the same ESI towards SPE1 and SPE2 The SPEs talk EVPN, using route type 5 to implement an L3VPN service. This provides the ESI and mass withdrawal that RFC4364 routes do not. --Jakob From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Wednesday, Nove

Re: [bess] draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-l3vpn- multihoming-00.txt

egarding using local edge PIC on the SPEs, it doesn’t give you the sych-up of prefixes for VRFs and ARP cache tables. We are talking about a single BGP session between the CE and S-PEs. And upon failure, we are talking about non-stop forwarding with min. traffic disruption. -Ali From: BESS

[bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

I don’t support the adoption of this draft as a WG. There is a major flaw in this proposal: Basically the encapsulation of VXLAN/NVGRE is incompatible with MPLS IP-VPNs. VXLAN/NVGRE contains a MAC address and IP-VPNs don’t. The draft does not talk about any of this and introduces a lot of comple

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Hi Wim, Thanks for your feedback. With my co-chair hat, let met ask a few questions for the sake of well understanding the issue you raise. Henderickx, Wim (Wim): I don’t support the adoption of

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

g<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" mailto:bess@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Wim, (below) 2015-11-12, Henderickx, Wim (Wim): Henderickx, Wim (Wim): I don’t support the adoption of this draft as a WG. There is a major flaw in this proposal: Basically the e

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

ion, so no inner MAC concerns. Thanks, weiguo From: BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>] on behalf of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

aints we may have would have value. (+ one question below on VXLAN...) -Thomas 2015-11-12, Henderickx, Wim (Wim): On VXLAN/NVGRE, do you challenge the fact that they would be used with a dummy MAC address that would be replaced by the right MAC by a sender based on an ARP request when needed ?

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

he packet, push the label on the packet before sending toward WAN. Hope we together work out the solution for this valid use case and like to hear any better alternative. Regards, Lucy From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

Orange Date: Friday 13 November 2015 at 17:36 To: Wim Henderickx mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>> Cc: "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" mailto:bess@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Hi Wim, 2015-11-13, Henderickx, Wim (Wim)

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

like to hear any better alternative. Regards, Lucy From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:00 PM To: Haoweiguo Cc: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc The whol

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

this valid use case and like to hear any better alternative. Regards, Lucy From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:00 PM To: Haoweiguo Cc: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

for this valid use case and like to hear any better alternative. Regards, Lucy From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:00 PM To: Haoweiguo Cc: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-be

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

; Subject: RE: draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 2:49 PM To: Lucy yong; Haoweiguo Cc: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc From

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

el table; when DC ASBR receives a packet from NVE, by lookup the table, it gets the label for the packet, push the label on the packet before sending toward WAN. Hope we together work out the solution for this valid use case and like to hear any better alternative. Regards, Lucy From: B

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

k out the solution for this valid use case and like to hear any better alternative. Regards, Lucy From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 11:00 PM To: Haoweiguo Cc: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bes

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

rg<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" mailto:bess@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Our solution also works with VXLAN-gpe encap. Lucy From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 3:17 PM To: Lucy yong; Haoweigu

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

er IP data frames to be passed to the MPLS IP-VPNs. Will it clear out the confusion? Linda From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:34 AM To: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Subject: [bess] draft-hao-bess-int

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

seen require the application inside the DC consume the 3rd label and as such is very well supported with the proposal I suggested. Thanks, weiguo From: BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>] on behalf of Henderickx, Wim (Wim)

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

rickx mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Wim, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) : VXLAN has a dedicated UDP port and is very clear in the RFC7348 Well, having a port reserved for this use that won't be the default for another prot

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

to:bess@ietf.org>" mailto:bess@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Hi Wim, 2015-11-13, Henderickx, Wim (Wim): Thomas, we can discuss forever and someone need to describe requirements, but the current proposal I cannot agree to for the reasons ex

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

17 November 2015 at 01:37 To: Wim Henderickx mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com>>, BESS mailto:bess@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Hi Wim, WG, 2015-11-16, Henderickx, Wim (Wim): 2015-11-13, Henderickx, Wim (Wim): Thomas, we can discuss

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

receives packets from NVEs. Lucy From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:49 AM To: thomas.mo...@orange.com<mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>; BESS Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc — Snip — No, the s

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

DP port range is too large, we can combine with >> solution 1 and 2. >> In this solution, both data plane modification changes are needed at >> OVS/TOR and ASBR-d. ASBR-d also has capability to realize the hardware >> changes. For OVS, it also can realize the data plane ch

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

In-line with WH> On 20/11/15 01:01, "BESS on behalf of thomas.mo...@orange.com" wrote: >2015-11-19, Henderickx, Wim (Wim): >> WH> I vote for a an evolution of switches/TORs that have proper >> support for this. I hope some HW vendors of TOR chips shime in, but

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

> heterogeneous network interworking. >>>> The advantage of this solution is that only VXLAN encapsulation is >>>> required for OVS/TOR. Unlike Wim's solution, east-west bound traffic >>>> uses VXLAN encap, while north-south bound traffic uses MPLSoGRE/UD

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

In-line with WH2> On 19/11/15 22:37, "Haoweiguo" wrote: >Hi Wim, >Pls see inline with [weiguo2]. >weiguo > >From: BESS [bess-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Henderickx, Wim (Wim) >[wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com] >

Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

f.org] on behalf of Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge) >[jorge.raba...@alcatel-lucent.com] >Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 3:31 >To: UTTARO, JAMES; John E Drake; EXT - thomas.mo...@orange.com; Lucy yong; >Henderickx, Wim (Wim); bess@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Martin, for me this seems a reasonable way forward On 14/12/15 10:28, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" wrote: >WG, > >we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response >to our initial proposal. >After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as

Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree

As a co-author I believe this doc is mature and stable for final WG review. Not aware of IPR related to the draft On 19/01/16 00:51, "BESS on behalf of Thomas Morin" wrote: >Hello Working Group, > >This email starts a Working Group Last Call on >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree [1] which is consid