(sajassi)
> <saja...@cisco.com>; bess@ietf.org
> Cc: Ronald Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
> Subject: RE: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, wrt
> Inter-AS Option B
>
> Jeffrey,
>
> I don't think anyone would argue that the proper solution to per-ES
Ali Sajassi (sajassi); bess@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, wrt Inter-AS
> Option B
>
> Hi Ali,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Hi Ali,
> -Original Message-
> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:59 AM
> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>; bess@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, wr
hui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>; bess@ietf.org
>> Cc: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>
>> Subject: Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, wrt
>> Inter-AS Option B
>>
>>
>> Hi Jeffrey,
>>
>> A few points:
>
s] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, wrt
> Inter-AS Option B
>
>
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
> A few points:
>
> 1) There have been lots of discussions on this topic but you were not in
> attendance for some of them including the ones held at the last IETF in
I want to bring up an old discussion about the following:
In summary, it can be seen that aliasing (and backup path)
functionality should work as is for inter-AS option B without
requiring any addition functionality in ASBRs or PEs. However, the
mass-withdraw functionality falls back
