From nobody Fri Jul 1 04:23:10 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85CA712B007 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 04:23:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.66 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XkdM96dp6e6L for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 04:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.orange.com (p-mail2.rd.orange.com [161.106.1.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42CD012B004 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 04:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 847FDE3007F for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 13:23:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.194.32.11]) by p-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A129E30079 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 13:23:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.193.71.12] (10.193.71.12) by FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (10.194.32.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.279.2; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 13:23:04 +0200 References: To: BESS From: Thomas Morin Organization: Orange X-Forwarded-Message-Id: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 13:23:04 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------8CBFFFDF4481EBD3E185032F" Archived-At: Subject: [bess] Fwd: [IANA #915440] Early allocation request - draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 11:23:09 -0000 --------------8CBFFFDF4481EBD3E185032F Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------8CBFFFDF4481EBD3E185032F Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[IANA #915440] Early allocation request - draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*0="[IANA #915440] Early allocation request - draft-ietf-bess-ev"; filename*1="pn-optimized-ir" Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (10.98.84.131) by OPEXCLILM6E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup (10.114.31.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.294.0; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:56:02 +0200 Received: from omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.98.62.21]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 524694C06F for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:56:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 398183246BF for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:56:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr with queue id 5600893-23 for thomas.morin@orange.com; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 08:56:01 GMT Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [4.31.198.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relais-inet.francetelecom.com (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 9B89F3244FD for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 01:03:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2AD69127058; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:03:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir.all@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir.all@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0586D12B019 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:03:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.625 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sIpDWs-pgYrA for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.46.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1610B127058 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from request3.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp01.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u5UN3o5k026093 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 23:03:50 GMT Received: by request3.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 2270EC2053E; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 23:03:50 +0000 (UTC) RT-Owner: amanda.baber Subject: [IANA #915440] Early allocation request - draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir From: Amanda Baber via RT Reply-To: In-Reply-To: References: <57742F18.8050906@alcatel-lucent.com> Message-ID: X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA X-RT-Ticket: IANA #915440 X-Managed-BY: RT 4.2.9 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/) X-RT-Originator: amanda.baber@icann.org CC: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8 Precedence: bulk Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 23:03:50 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Resent-From: Resent-To: , , , , , , , , , Resent-Message-ID: <20160630230353.2AD69127058@ietfa.amsl.com> Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:03:53 -0700 X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2016.6.30.225416 Return-Path: postmaster.quarantine@orange.com X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: OPEXCLILM6E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AVStamp-Mailbox: Sophos;-1318897662;0;PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Hi all, IANA has made the following early allocations under the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters heading at http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters: 1) In the P-Multicast Service Interface Tunnel (PMSI Tunnel) Tunnel Types registry, IANA has registered the following: 0x0A Assisted-Replication Tunnel (TEMPORARY - registered 2016-06-30, expires 2017-06-30) [draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir] 2) In the P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Attribute Flags registry, IANA has registered the following: 3-4 Assisted-Replication Type (T) (TEMPORARY - registered 2016-06-30, expires 2017-06-30) [draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir] 5 Broadcast and Multicast (BM) (TEMPORARY - registered 2016-06-30, expires 2017-06-30) [draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir] 6 Unknown (U) (TEMPORARY - registered 2016-06-30, expires 2017-06-30) [draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir] Please add these names and values to the document's IANA Considerations section. These allocations can be renewed for one additional year before they expire. If the document has yet to be approved for publication, we'll contact you within 60 days of 2017-06-30 to ask you whether you want to renew. Best regards, Amanda Baber IANA Senior Specialist ICANN On Thu Jun 30 18:43:25 2016, aretana@cisco.com wrote: > On 6/30/16, 2:10 PM, "Amanda Baber via RT" > wrote: > > Amanda: > > Hi! > > >As the AD for the BESS working group, can you confirm that IANA can make > >the early allocations Martin requests below? > > Yes, please go ahead. > > > > >If these are OK, should we present the final pair of allocations as > > Let's go with the second option, but a more specific name: > > Value: 3-4 > Name: Assisted-Replication Type (T) > Reference: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir > > > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > > > > >Value: 3 & 4 > >Name: Type (T) > >Reference: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir > > > >or > > > >Value: 3-4 > >Name: Type (T) > >Reference: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir > > > >or > > > >Value: 3 > >Name: Type1 (T1) > >Reference: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir > >Value: 4 > >Name: Type2 (T2) > >Reference: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir > > > --------------8CBFFFDF4481EBD3E185032F-- From nobody Sun Jul 3 21:21:30 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58D112D1E7 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 21:21:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5-aG7SZSeLWb for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 21:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 875E012B01B for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 21:21:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9041; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467606086; x=1468815686; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=qy4atCy0nfHh0q3pzlEOq9XdqHfuuCKBgVeMFr6RIXE=; b=DBjzFTii0wcUyHgVfTFbDcRwkgQ+adeCT6McQVJQ+9XI4My3fkf9etn/ 3eZDWVQULwALLB881wS3q3xU07vHTw1vgSw52V+SpHHtV/05qThDBSA1Q 9tFoyFo3U7fScs+JFurAw0ptfljSGOpkGARX4cuSRXrey+XVoMZf5xcEr A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A9AgAV43lX/5xdJa1bgz5WfAa5LYF5I?= =?us-ascii?q?oV2AoEqOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeETAEBBQ5XAh4EAgEIEQQBAQEjBAcyFAkIAgQBEhS?= =?us-ascii?q?IHA7BOAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEZBYlygQOKGwWOPIpXAYYIgnqFRI8qk?= =?us-ascii?q?AkBHjaCCAUXF4E1bogNfwEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,573,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="122002984" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Jul 2016 04:21:25 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u644LPQc019317 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Jul 2016 04:21:25 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 00:21:24 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 00:21:24 -0400 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: Thomas Morin , John E Drake , "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)" , BESS , "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay / section 5.1.3 vs. section 9 (was Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps) Thread-Index: AQHRxwQVar89BF9PoE++IfK/IWUITZ/q1UuAgAACPYCAHL8ugA== Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 04:21:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: <5729F1C3.1030605@orange.com> <5729F7C5.6040604@orange.com> <52D35106-ED5E-4C95-9131-6EA4527370D5@alcatel-lucent.com> <012C176C-A8D6-45AA-BA69-616C0ED7E41E@alcatel-lucent.com> <31d2c99b-de11-9e3c-fae9-2d60017c3090@orange.com> <5980f27a-32f1-25d5-a64c-3786f88d3f69@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <5980f27a-32f1-25d5-a64c-3786f88d3f69@orange.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.4.160422 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.19.76.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <006CA301A800EE428A6C18149E2AECC9@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay / section 5.1.3 vs. section 9 (was Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps) X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 04:21:29 -0000 Hi Thomas, Thanks for your comments again. I have incorporated them except the minor comment of removing a sentence in section 9. Previously, section 9 had a repetitive text which I replaced it with a reference to section 5.1.3 which I think should be kept - i.e., if someone is jumping directly to mcast handling section (sec 9), it is useful to have a reference to sec 5.1.3 on how Eth tag field is set. Cheers, Ali On 6/15/16, 7:21 AM, "Thomas Morin" wrote: >Sounds good. > >Thanks, > >-Thomas > > >2016-06-15, John E Drake: >> Thomas, >> >> Comments inline. >> >> Yours Irrespectively, >> >> John >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Thomas Morin [mailto:thomas.morin@orange.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 8:47 AM >>> To: John E Drake; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US); BESS; >>>draft-ietf-bess-evpn- >>> overlay@tools.ietf.org; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) >>> Subject: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay / section 5.1.3 vs. section 9 >>>(was Re: [Idr] draft-ietf- >>> bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps) >>> >>> Hi John, Ali, >>> >>> Through the discussion below it appeared that section 9 and section >>> 5.1.3 needed adjustments to be brought in sync, and indeed there were >>>some changes in >>> last revision. >>> >>> However, I don't think the cleanup/precision is complete yet: >>> - section 5.1.3 says "the MPLS label field in the [...] Inclusive >>>Multicast Ethernet Tag routes is >>> used to carry the VNI" although the "Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag >>>Route" has no "MPLS >>> label field" >>> - (directly related to the above) none of these section talks about >>>using the MPLS field of >>> the PMSI Tunnel Attribute as the VNI, although the discussion below >>>concluded that it is >>> what implementations actually do >> >> >> [JD] Accordingly, and specifically to support the option of locally >>assigned VNIs, the MPLS label1 field in the MAC Advertisement route, the >>MPLS label field in the Ethernet AD per EVI route, and the MPLS label >>field in the PMSI Tunnel Attribute of the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet >>Tag route are used to carry the VNI. >> >> >>> - also, section 9 now says "The Ethernet Tag field of this route is >>>set as described in section >>> 5.1.3.", but I find this sentence useless and redundant (precisely >>>because 5.1.3 already says >>> it and nothing would indicate that section 9 would be exempt of what >>>5.1.3 says) >> >> >> [JD] We should strike the sentence. >> >> >>> >>> Additionally, it occurred to me that "the MPLS field" is not, strictly >>>speaking, unambiguous >>> for MAC Advertisement routes, because the route actually has two MPLS >>>fields. The text >>> should just say "MPLS Label1 field" for the MAC/IP advertisement route. >> >> >> [JD] See above. >> >> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -Thomas >>> >>> >>> 2016-05-04, John E Drake: >>>> Jorge, >>>> >>>> We put the VNI value in the MPLS label field of the PMSI attribute >>>>for all service types, >>> and we put a value in the Ethernet Tag field following the rules for >>>each service type as >>> described in 5.1.3 >>>(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02#section- >>> 5.1.3). >>>> >>>> You're right that we need to clean up section 9. >>>> >>>> Yours Irrespectively, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US) [mailto:jorge.rabadan@nokia.com] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 3:53 PM >>>>> To: John E Drake; EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com; BESS; IDR; >>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn- overlay@tools.ietf.org; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) >>>>> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. >>>>> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps >>>>> >>>>> Hi John, >>>>> >>>>> About this: >>>>> >>>>> [JD] For the IMET route the MPLS label field is carried in the PMSI >>>>> attribute. I think we need to ask everyone whether they used the >>>>> Ethernet Tag or the PMSI attribute to carry the VNI >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In case it helps, I=B9ve seen a few implementations running and they >>>>> all encode the VNI in the MPLS label field in the PTA. And a couple >>>>> of them, encode the VNI in the ethernet-tag, in addition to the MPLS >>>>> label in the PTA. In any case, I think section 9 contradicts section >>>>>5.1.3 and should be >>> clarified. >>>>> >>>>> "5.1.3 Constructing EVPN BGP Routes >>>>> >>>>> the MPLS label field in the MAC Advertisement, Ethernet AD per EVI, >>>>> and **Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag** routes is used to carry the >>>>>VNI or VSID." >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> Jorge >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/4/16, 8:34 PM, "EXT John E Drake" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thomas and Jorge, >>>>>> >>>>>> Snipped, comments inline. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yours Irrespectively, >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay (see section 9) relies on the BGP >>>>>>>> Encapsulation extended to encode the tunnel encap to use for BUM >>>>>>>> traffic, but contrary to other E-VPN routes, relies on the >>>>>>>> Ethernet Tag field of the NLRI to encode the VNI/VSID. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [JORGE] This is certainly a leftover from an old version where the >>>>>>> VNI/VSID was encoded in the ethernet tag for all the routes. The >>>>>>> VNI should be encoded in the Label field in all the routes. This >>>>>>>has to be corrected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In fact, section 5.1.3 says: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 5.1.3 Constructing EVPN BGP Routes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Accordingly, and >>>>>>> specifically to support the option of locally assigned VNIs, >>>>>>>the MPLS >>>>>>> label field in the MAC Advertisement, Ethernet AD per EVI, and >>>>>>> Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag routes is used to carry the >>>>>>>VNI or >>>>>>> VSID. For the balance of this memo, the MPLS label field will >>>>>>>be >>>>>>> referred to as the VNI/VSID field. The VNI/VSID field is used >>>>>>>for >>>>>>> both local and global VNIs/VSIDs, and for either case the >>>>>>>entire 24- >>>>>>> bit field is used to encode the VNI/VSID value. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [JD] For the IMET route the MPLS label field is carried in the PMSI >>>>>> attribute. I think we >>>>> need to ask everyone whether they >>>>>> used the Ethernet Tag or the PMSI attribute to carry the VNI >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are minor things that could be improved in >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay wrt. consistency with >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps : >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * since draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps will deprecate RFC5512, it >>>>>>>>> would be better that draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay refers to >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps and not anymore to RFC5512. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [JORGE] I agree, as long as draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps keeps the >>>>>>> encapsulation extended community. There are a few implementations >>>>>>> using this community and it is enough when only the encapsulation >>>>>>>type is needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [JD] I agree and the tunnel encaps draft does keep the EC >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * I think it would be better to avoid the explicit list of encap >>>>>>>>> types in section 5.1.3, and rather refer to >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps instead >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [JORGE] I agree. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [JD] According to IANA, it allocated the five tunnels types to the >>>>>> overlay draft so I think we need to keep them >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * the following minor modification was proposed, but not yet >>>>>>>>>incorporated: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John Drake, 2015-11-13 (to BESS ML): >>>>>>>>>> For the overlay draft, replace this text in section 5.1.3: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "If the BGP Encapsulation extended community is not present, >>>>>>>>>> then the default MPLS encapsulation or a statically configured >>>>>>>>>> encapsulation is assumed." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With the following: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Note that the MPLS encapsulation tunnel type is needed in >>>>>>>>>> order to distinguish between an advertising node that only >>>>>>>>>> supports non-MPLS encapsulations and one that supports MPLS and >>>>>>>>>> non-MPLS encapsulations. An advertising node that only >>>>>>>>>> supports MPLS encapsulation does not need to advertise any >>>>>>>>>> encapsulation tunnel types; i.e., if the BGP Encapsulation >>>>>>>>>> extended community is not present, then either MPLS >>>>>>>>>> encapsulation or a statically configured encapsulation is >>>>>>>>>>assumed." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think this change is useful and should be incorporated, >>>>>>>>> although skipping the last sentence would be wise if the full >>>>>>>>> list of tunnel types is removed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [JD] Fine with me either w/ or w/o the last sentence >>>>>> >>>>>> >> > From nobody Sun Jul 3 21:47:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF39612D501 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 21:47:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fDDkNTcimRDv for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 21:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 135EB12D1E3 for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2016 21:47:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3117; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467607659; x=1468817259; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=cH2+Gwjm6lBqqN7MbiZoTTAGPL+3GyPNp1hQgholZy8=; b=bSxjza9MNbhFdOJC6wxcTjDHG7O7IvyenQA1hpDNm1ZD+slZaDwEa2NS HDsCBxDsf4sd7n7gGY/MObteo4enp0DYsYFib8XysmghvZQx5qJ55QSRW yRh4biO8P4uU3Z9gx7jupS01GWVt7wmrCHTKWRcFTxp4M6FnXjthU1O5w 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A9AgAy6XlX/4oNJK1agz5WfAa5LYF5I?= =?us-ascii?q?oV2AoEqOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeETQEFAQEbUQsQAgEIRicLJQIEAQ0FiDAOwToBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXBYp1hBIRAYV3BY48ilcBhghwh06BaoRWgy6FP?= =?us-ascii?q?JAJAR42gjuBNW6HVzZ/AQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,573,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="119731801" Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 Jul 2016 04:47:38 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (xch-rtp-005.cisco.com [64.101.220.145]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u644lb4b020373 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Jul 2016 04:47:37 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 00:47:36 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 00:47:36 -0400 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "thomas.morin@orange.com" , BESS Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay Thread-Index: AQHRxW67gwDozl/9+USz5/SLediWRaAHoTKA Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 04:47:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.4.160422 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.19.76.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 04:47:41 -0000 I support WG LC of this draft as a co-author. This draft has been implemented in Cisco switches for a while. Furthermore, I am not aware of any IPR that hasn=B9t been already disclosed. Regards, Ali On 6/13/16, 5:25 AM, "BESS on behalf of thomas.morin@orange.com" wrote: >Hello Working Group, > >(Please read carefully, this e-mail contains new elements compared to WG >LCs we were doing in a still recent past.) > >This email starts a Working Group Last Call on >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay [1]. > >* Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent >version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than >*27th of June*. > >Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document, but >also a call for support (or not) publishing this document as a Proposed >Standard RFC. > >* We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies >to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, to ensure that IPR has been >disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 >and 5378 for more details) prior to moving forward. >If you are listed as a document Author or Contributor of >this document please respond to this email and indicate whether or not >you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The document won't >progress without answers from all the Authors and Contributors. > >* We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of >what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. >Please inform the mailing list, the chairs, or only one of the chairs. > >* Finally, if you want to volunteer to be Document Shepherd for this >document, please let us know. > >Thank you, > >Thomas/Martin > > >[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay >[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw > >__________________________________________________________________________ >_______________________________________________ > >Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez >recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme >ou falsifie. Merci. > >This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >information that may be protected by law; >they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >delete this message and its attachments. >As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have >been modified, changed or falsified. >Thank you. > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Mon Jul 4 16:56:02 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3978312B025 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:56:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZYWp6VHvXzch for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 506D8126579 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:55:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2561; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467676559; x=1468886159; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=G5whem/71WSlHsWk9qgLbL+FSFTL7NvuxMGr+TCDd5s=; b=V5aXzwaXh9ewAbDpmRBxCv10J+pA4EOFcX6fxBbi6tuheYmymdqPbRBf OnW0m5g7epHSw2A7iWyj5ngqe7aR4bUO5D6m7/b5Wecn99fMcsdOOpL+m yVMtrXCltp1UpHvycqzvV130uozKI92RJRYQGonx6RinEE3tZbO7vP50H A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ASAgCt9npX/4YNJK1bgz5WfAa5OoF3I?= =?us-ascii?q?oV2AoE6OBQBAQEBAQEBZSeETQEFAQFsCxACAQhGJwslAgQBDQWIMA64eQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARcFinSEEhEBHIVbBY48ilcBhgiIPoFqhFaIapAJA?= =?us-ascii?q?R42g3Buh1c2fwEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,577,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="122131852" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 Jul 2016 23:55:58 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u64Ntvg7011826 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 Jul 2016 23:55:58 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:55:56 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:55:56 -0400 From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" To: "thomas.morin@orange.com" , "bess@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-boutros-bess-vxlan-evpn-01 Thread-Index: AQHRyvF3RmVZLH/JL0+LYF67F4nfdaAI1wSA Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 23:55:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: <13757_1466426646_5767E516_13757_65_3_c07fe734-d3c2-09f5-cdd6-bac2e1117d9a@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <13757_1466426646_5767E516_13757_65_3_c07fe734-d3c2-09f5-cdd6-bac2e1117d9a@orange.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.4.160422 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.19.76.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <669C2035A6244B44AEB94EAEDB528067@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-boutros-bess-vxlan-evpn@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-boutros-bess-vxlan-evpn-01 X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 23:56:01 -0000 Support as a co-author. I am not aware of any IPR that hasn=B9t already bee= n disclosed. Cheers, Ali On 6/20/16, 5:44 AM, "BESS on behalf of thomas.morin@orange.com" wrote: >Hello working group, > >This email starts a two-week poll on adopting >draft-boutros-bess-vxlan-evpn-01 [1] as a Working Group Document. > >Please state on the list if you support adoption or not (in both cases, >please also state the reasons). > >This poll runs until *July 4th*. > >We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies >to this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance >with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more >details). > >If you are listed as an Author or Contributor of this Document please >respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any >relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers >from all the Authors and Contributors. > >No IPR has been disclosed against this Document. > >If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please >explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet >been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > >Thank you > >Martin & Thomas >bess chairs > >[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boutros-bess-vxlan-evpn-01 > >__________________________________________________________________________ >_______________________________________________ > >Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez >recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme >ou falsifie. Merci. > >This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >information that may be protected by law; >they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >delete this message and its attachments. >As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have >been modified, changed or falsified. >Thank you. > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Tue Jul 5 07:53:51 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307E912D50D for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 07:53:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q2P9NLa43oFr for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 07:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam01on0127.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.34.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8870B12D5EC for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 07:53:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=L4w+GA7dX1rwhgRbsDYxs5gasLPLY9c8UuXjTIRml4o=; b=IUREAsh4R0ILSIWx379Su6A7Y/qLMDPUcGDVLQkOyjJPDP/LSWBM3VcnKTtpRjdF9S7rc9kGfC3FhZf/G9tiHChck2oz56AWZxTLfe1hCwkg1ZDBsGIfYZ2xJXCdypFVtfOvir7InMQkppvXAk8epQ7h05APjv1b69kYGK+4HZ0= Received: from BY2PR05MB2310.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.166.112.148) by BY2PR05MB2311.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.166.112.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.539.6; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:53:47 +0000 Received: from BY2PR05MB2310.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.112.148]) by BY2PR05MB2310.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.166.112.148]) with mapi id 15.01.0539.013; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:53:47 +0000 From: John E Drake To: "EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com" , BESS Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay Thread-Index: AQHRxW63ZNLbKISmxUq+2pWeVNUw5KAKDlmg Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 14:53:47 +0000 Message-ID: References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jdrake@juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5dbe744f-af61-454d-41d1-08d3a4e42b47 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR05MB2311; 6:Y00hDHCNbJKD8YQXQIMzt7Y8ASjGkBQxOw+NJk8ZsIjc6cbPzPaoQ4CmwE8+0c8t7XhtwLd384XxEqIB4rzU4vw6ATClQrZGkshWduOrntSOj5DghIjX+hRAl1m86EY9FPdPiVO22z1QajPiQdLHZkRyUzRvt8ap9muedk59uzzKQz3q8XQGo9GAJAOQgwhyZfRqdJYDEbdK7CnROj3hcJLKY9i83XL1Lj81UbpM0RgGISfL2PffvJqafxb0xGPHZkqCIGEQQx87uSzFlBDL7MO3Bot8js0rkpkmoyayJH20IJ05pKT7DoFszhhHOU5+NqoeJdwqFrM6yJW50SnYtw==; 5:nYcwRDJPcculf6GhW12c0qA09WWKGSo8ps1zsq4P53TepIBtcZqTdWF86x59esGRDMEj+2TIu/2y9ivwtsXl7Ha+FmAx33HT371WJrIjOKAA7q2VnUVqnnaisc0js3VGilssPtIN9oP9KauWvT7v4w==; 24:4dsQA/qD2ut4cKpXIVyzOgnfTXRUoqApwup5YLBQkkJ5G5jJzpLjp/Y94cMClsGjItHGFAtAWeBb2OS6TA5C2zXew4DhKCx4zKGfsVPMczE=; 7:JsPnc+RpY2ykAvan7hUcWe1SzG/tVX2lSTeXJ7gRTB9UtMpfX+HTf6cQW2MSgiXMYE/6RlsRH/xfCDrQd0LccUcoqK4QtKMvyDkSTf2/x34zzLlcZ8Yke/i0xBTjndzsWhZoDZEAKbOk9Fg/lOspB2uiD0KuRQo11dPkORR6NSVYZy3z4+zoYZUZHePZnpzZQrNdvJ4etbYeyDVNfGUdY0HVS6m7LU1n8RZE/3wKt5ix86D1WMFhWwLejwb5UzI9 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR05MB2311; x-ld-processed: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4,ExtAddr x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(131327999870524)(18271650672692); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026); SRVR:BY2PR05MB2311; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR05MB2311; x-forefront-prvs: 0994F5E0C5 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(189002)(13464003)(199003)(377454003)(3846002)(6116002)(102836003)(76576001)(10400500002)(3280700002)(2900100001)(3660700001)(7696003)(8936002)(5890100001)(305945005)(15975445007)(8676002)(5003600100003)(586003)(7846002)(105586002)(81156014)(2906002)(106356001)(11100500001)(7736002)(4326007)(106116001)(81166006)(230783001)(189998001)(50986999)(76176999)(86362001)(54356999)(87936001)(33656002)(9686002)(101416001)(19580395003)(5002640100001)(68736007)(122556002)(19580405001)(77096005)(2950100001)(74316002)(92566002)(99286002)(97736004)(66066001)(5001770100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB2311; H:BY2PR05MB2310.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Jul 2016 14:53:47.2849 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR05MB2311 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 14:53:51 -0000 Thomas, I'm sorry for the tardy response. I support the publication of this draft = as it describes a de-facto industry standard control plane for NVO3 network= s; Juniper has implemented it on multiple platforms. I'm not aware of any= IPR.=20 Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of thomas.morin@orang= e.com > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:26 AM > To: BESS > Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for dra= ft-ietf-bess-evpn- > overlay >=20 > Hello Working Group, >=20 > (Please read carefully, this e-mail contains new elements compared to WG = LCs we were > doing in a still recent past.) >=20 > This email starts a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overl= ay [1]. >=20 > * Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent version ye= t, and send your > comments to the list, no later than *27th of June*. >=20 > Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document, but als= o a call for support > (or not) publishing this document as a Proposed Standard RFC. >=20 > * We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies t= o draft-ietf-bess- > evpn-overlay-04, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with= IETF IPR rules > (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details) prior to moving for= ward. > If you are listed as a document Author or Contributor of this document pl= ease respond to > this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undi= sclosed IPR. The > document won't progress without answers from all the Authors and Contribu= tors. >=20 > * We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of = what this document > specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. > Please inform the mailing list, the chairs, or only one of the chairs. >=20 > * Finally, if you want to volunteer to be Document Shepherd for this docu= ment, please let > us know. >=20 > Thank you, >=20 > Thomas/Martin >=20 >=20 > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDp= w >=20 > _____________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________ >=20 > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confid= entielles ou > privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sa= ns autorisation. Si > vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur= et le detruire ainsi > que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'a= lteration, Orange > decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsi= fie. Merci. >=20 > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged i= nformation that > may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied w= ithout > authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and de= lete this message > and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have bee= n modified, > changed or falsified. > Thank you. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Tue Jul 5 08:57:06 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietf.org Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF44C12D60B; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 08:57:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.25.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160705155704.22322.81713.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 08:57:04 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07.txt X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 15:57:05 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS of the IETF. Title : VPWS support in EVPN Authors : Sami Boutros Ali Sajassi Samer Salam John Drake Jeff Tantsura Dirk Steinberg Thomas Beckhaus Jorge Rabadan Filename : draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2016-07-05 Abstract: This document describes how EVPN can be used to support Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) in MPLS/IP networks. EVPN enables the following characteristics for VPWS: single-active as well as all- active multi-homing with flow-based load-balancing, eliminates the need for traditional way of PW signaling, and provides fast protection convergence upon node or link failure. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Jul 5 16:18:43 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17E712D16C for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:18:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HqDJWuDUwKr6 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 152D112D115 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:18:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1294; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467760718; x=1468970318; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=jnOXRuF7H+PIVmGuK/8qDcxeL5n4VAYcsvCdvrwuJVE=; b=I0DAdjBrgBa+r3JoHNWkuy86ZOFtK+QKU9Emn/eFSefBnAO0xlRgour+ z8clUL4/+30R+Q1fjYtAkzbb0wc5efpy31AEEzKcTQm2u3PBrwAfH+Ya/ Uot9wq67pq7uAHRwsQ/mnx4LS/r28SQhtAaZwmDKS/iDSCPimeaWDnU0j A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AjAgC4P3xX/4sNJK1SCoM+VnwGuUOBd?= =?us-ascii?q?ySFdAIcgRQ4FAEBAQEBAQFlHAuETQYjEUMSAgEiAiYCAgIwFRACBBuIKA6raY9?= =?us-ascii?q?+AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARkFgQGFJoRNhBiDKYJaBY4EhVWFOgGGCIg3j?= =?us-ascii?q?zGQCQEeNoNwbgGHVAF+AQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,315,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="122534875" Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Jul 2016 23:18:38 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (xch-aln-014.cisco.com [173.36.7.24]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u65NIcxp013272 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 23:18:38 GMT Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 18:18:37 -0500 Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 18:18:37 -0500 From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" To: "bess@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-heitz-bess-evpn-option-b-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHR0o3l9Pa+HU8MJk6ST5xVSIKKWKAKgRGQ Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 23:18:37 +0000 Message-ID: <77323ded855249f8a0cb6897c0099db0@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> References: <20160630051142.30380.38862.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160630051142.30380.38862.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [128.107.147.26] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [bess] New Version Notification for draft-heitz-bess-evpn-option-b-00.txt X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 23:18:41 -0000 QSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LWhlaXR6LWJlc3MtZXZwbi1vcHRpb24tYi0wMC50 eHQNCmhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgSmFrb2IgSGVpdHogYW5kIHBv c3RlZCB0byB0aGUNCklFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCg0KTmFtZToJCWRyYWZ0LWhlaXR6LWJlc3Mt ZXZwbi1vcHRpb24tYg0KUmV2aXNpb246CTAwDQpUaXRsZToJCU11bHRpLWhvbWluZyBpbiBFVlBO IHdpdGggSW50ZXItQVMgT3B0aW9uIEINCkRvY3VtZW50IGRhdGU6CTIwMTYtMDYtMjkNCkdyb3Vw OgkJSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJtaXNzaW9uDQpQYWdlczoJCTgNClVSTDogICAgICAgICAgICBodHRw czovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJhZnQtaGVpdHotYmVzcy1ldnBuLW9w dGlvbi1iLTAwLnR4dA0KU3RhdHVzOiAgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5v cmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWhlaXR6LWJlc3MtZXZwbi1vcHRpb24tYi8NCkh0bWxpemVkOiAgICAgICBo dHRwczovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtaGVpdHotYmVzcy1ldnBuLW9wdGlvbi1i LTAwDQoNCg0KQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQogICBUaGUgQkdQIHNwZWFrZXIgdGhhdCBvcmlnaW5hdGVzIGFu IEVWUE4gRXRoZXJuZXQgQS1EIHBlciBFUyByb3V0ZSBpcw0KICAgaWRlbnRpZmllZCBieSB0aGUg bmV4dC1ob3Agb2YgdGhlIHJvdXRlLiAgV2hlbiB0aGUgcm91dGUgaXMNCiAgIHByb3BhZ2F0ZWQg YnkgYW4gQVNCUiBhcyBhbiBJbnRlci1BUyBPcHRpb24gQiByb3V0ZSwgdGhlIEFTQlINCiAgIG92 ZXJ3cml0ZXMgdGhlIG5leHQtaG9wLiAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBkZXNjcmliZXMgYSBtZXRob2Qg dG8NCiAgIGlkZW50aWZ5IHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hdG9yIG9mIHRoZSByb3V0ZS4NCg0KDQpDb21tZW50 cyB3ZWxjb21lLg0KDQpUaGFua3MsDQpKYWtvYi4NCg== From nobody Wed Jul 6 05:16:58 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9DF112D1D3 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 05:16:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WUi7CdQ7JIu9 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 05:16:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E26F012D1C2 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 05:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 10AC79F377517 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:16:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u66CGqZZ017977 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:16:52 GMT Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u66CGntv016692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:16:52 +0200 Received: from [135.224.205.123] (135.239.27.39) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:16:50 +0200 Message-ID: <577CF6B1.2060903@nokia.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:16:49 +0200 From: Martin Vigoureux User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BESS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [135.239.27.39] Archived-At: Subject: [bess] Test X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 12:16:57 -0000 please ignore From nobody Thu Jul 7 07:23:25 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietf.org Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C0812D0D8; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 07:23:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.25.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160707142313.23733.70094.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 07:23:13 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 14:23:13 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS of the IETF. Title : Multicast VPN fast upstream failover Authors : Thomas Morin Robert Kebler Filename : draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2016-07-07 Abstract: This document defines multicast VPN extensions and procedures that allow fast failover for upstream failures, by allowing downstream PEs to take into account the status of Provider-Tunnels (P-tunnels) when selecting the upstream PE for a VPN multicast flow, and extending BGP MVPN routing so that a C-multicast route can be advertized toward a standby upstream PE. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Jul 7 10:08:30 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0891512D09A for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:08:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fIDshP1dC9M2 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F2BA12D124 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id A0C2B555D64F8; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:08:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u67H8PIA009372 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:08:25 GMT Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u67H8MAI019342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:08:22 +0200 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.106]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:08:22 +0200 From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)" To: "thomas.morin@orange.com" , BESS Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay Thread-Index: AQHRxW6+xluhE8fw2kq38OhwYu4UUqAMwpaA Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:08:21 +0000 Message-ID: <303F39B2-4811-4342-9D1D-258650C50FE1@nokia.com> References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.17.0.160611 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <979F25425D342543B477A0ED6C437AB8@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 17:08:30 -0000 VGhvbWFzIGV0IGFsLg0KDQpNeSBhcG9sb2dpZXMgZm9yIHRoZSBkZWxheS4NCkkgc3VwcG9ydCB0 aGUgcHVibGljYXRpb24gb2YgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBhcyBQcm9wb3NlZCBTdGFuZGFyZCBSRkMu DQpJdCBpcyBhIGtleSBEQyB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IGFuZCBoYXMgYmVlbiBpbXBsZW1lbnRlZCBieSBt dWx0aXBsZSB2ZW5kb3JzLiBJbiBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyLCBOb2tpYSBoYXMgaW1wbGVtZW50ZWQgaXQg aW4gbXVsdGlwbGUgcGxhdGZvcm1zLg0KDQpBbHNvLCBJIHRoaW5rIGl0IGlzIGltcG9ydGFudCB0 byBub3RlIHRoYXQgbXVsdGktdmVuZG9yIGludGVyb3BlcmFiaWxpdHkgaGFzIGJlZW4gcHVibGlj bHkgZGVtb25zdHJhdGVkIGJ5IGFuIGluZGVwZW5kZW50IG9yZ2FuaXphdGlvbiBkdXJpbmcgbGFz dCBGZWJydWFyeS4gUmVwb3J0IHdhcyBwdWJsaXNoZWQgaGVyZTogDQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LmVhbnRj LmRlL2ZpbGVhZG1pbi9lYW50Yy9kb3dubG9hZHMvZXZlbnRzLzIwMTEtMjAxNS9NUExTU0ROTkZW XzIwMTYvRUFOVEMtTVBMU1NETk5GVjIwMTYtV2hpdGVQYXBlcl9GaW5hbC5wZGYNCg0KVGhhbmsg eW91Lg0KSm9yZ2UNCg0KDQoNCg0KT24gNi8xMy8xNiwgNToyNSBBTSwgIkJFU1Mgb24gYmVoYWxm IG9mIHRob21hcy5tb3JpbkBvcmFuZ2UuY29tIiA8YmVzcy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIG9uIGJl aGFsZiBvZiB0aG9tYXMubW9yaW5Ab3JhbmdlLmNvbT4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCj5IZWxsbyBXb3JraW5n IEdyb3VwLA0KPg0KPihQbGVhc2UgcmVhZCBjYXJlZnVsbHksIHRoaXMgZS1tYWlsIGNvbnRhaW5z IG5ldyBlbGVtZW50cyBjb21wYXJlZCB0byBXRyANCj5MQ3Mgd2Ugd2VyZSBkb2luZyBpbiBhIHN0 aWxsIHJlY2VudCBwYXN0LikNCj4NCj5UaGlzIGVtYWlsIHN0YXJ0cyBhIFdvcmtpbmcgR3JvdXAg TGFzdCBDYWxsIG9uDQo+ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1iZXNzLWV2cG4tb3ZlcmxheSBbMV0uDQo+DQo+KiBQ bGVhc2UgcmVhZCB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgaWYgeW91IGhhdmVuJ3QgcmVhZCB0aGUgbW9zdCByZWNl bnQNCj52ZXJzaW9uIHlldCwgYW5kIHNlbmQgeW91ciBjb21tZW50cyB0byB0aGUgbGlzdCwgbm8g bGF0ZXIgdGhhbg0KPioyN3RoIG9mIEp1bmUqLg0KPg0KPk5vdGUgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGlzICpub3Qg b25seSogYSBjYWxsIGZvciBjb21tZW50cyBvbiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQsIGJ1dCANCj5hbHNvIGEg Y2FsbCBmb3Igc3VwcG9ydCAob3Igbm90KSBwdWJsaXNoaW5nIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgYXMgYSBQ cm9wb3NlZCANCj5TdGFuZGFyZCBSRkMuDQo+DQo+KiBXZSBhcmUgYWxzbyBwb2xsaW5nIGZvciBr bm93bGVkZ2Ugb2YgYW55IHVuZGlzY2xvc2VkIElQUiB0aGF0IGFwcGxpZXMgDQo+dG8gZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1iZXNzLWV2cG4tb3ZlcmxheS0wNCwgdG8gZW5zdXJlIHRoYXQgSVBSIGhhcyBiZWVuIA0K PmRpc2Nsb3NlZCBpbiBjb21wbGlhbmNlIHdpdGggSUVURiBJUFIgcnVsZXMgKHNlZSBSRkNzIDM5 NzksIDQ4NzksIDM2NjkgDQo+YW5kIDUzNzggZm9yIG1vcmUgZGV0YWlscykgcHJpb3IgdG8gbW92 aW5nIGZvcndhcmQuDQo+SWYgeW91IGFyZSBsaXN0ZWQgYXMgYSBkb2N1bWVudCBBdXRob3Igb3Ig Q29udHJpYnV0b3Igb2YNCj50aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHRvIHRoaXMgZW1h aWwgYW5kIGluZGljYXRlIHdoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90IA0KPnlvdSBhcmUgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IHJl bGV2YW50IHVuZGlzY2xvc2VkIElQUi4gVGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHdvbid0IA0KPnByb2dyZXNzIHdp dGhvdXQgYW5zd2VycyBmcm9tIGFsbCB0aGUgQXV0aG9ycyBhbmQgQ29udHJpYnV0b3JzLg0KPg0K PiogV2UgYXJlIGFsc28gcG9sbGluZyBmb3Iga25vd2xlZGdlIG9mIGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9ucyBv ZiBwYXJ0IG9yIGFsbCBvZiANCj53aGF0IHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgc3BlY2lmaWVzLiBUaGlzIGlu Zm9ybWF0aW9uIGlzIGV4cGVjdGVkIGFzIHBlciBbMl0uIA0KPlBsZWFzZSBpbmZvcm0gdGhlIG1h aWxpbmcgbGlzdCwgdGhlIGNoYWlycywgb3Igb25seSBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGNoYWlycy4NCj4NCj4q IEZpbmFsbHksIGlmIHlvdSB3YW50IHRvIHZvbHVudGVlciB0byBiZSBEb2N1bWVudCBTaGVwaGVy ZCBmb3IgdGhpcyANCj5kb2N1bWVudCwgcGxlYXNlIGxldCB1cyBrbm93Lg0KPg0KPlRoYW5rIHlv dSwNCj4NCj5UaG9tYXMvTWFydGluDQo+DQo+DQo+WzFdIGh0dHBzOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtYmVzcy1ldnBuLW92ZXJsYXkNCj5bMl0gaHR0cHM6Ly9tYWls YXJjaGl2ZS5pZXRmLm9yZy9hcmNoL21zZy9iZXNzL2NHM1gxdFRxYl92UEM0cmc1NlNFZGtqcURw dw0KPg0KPl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4NCj5DZSBtZXNzYWdlIGV0IHNlcyBwaWVjZXMgam9pbnRlcyBwZXV2 ZW50IGNvbnRlbmlyIGRlcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbnMgY29uZmlkZW50aWVsbGVzIG91IHByaXZpbGVn aWVlcyBldCBuZSBkb2l2ZW50IGRvbmMNCj5wYXMgZXRyZSBkaWZmdXNlcywgZXhwbG9pdGVzIG91 IGNvcGllcyBzYW5zIGF1dG9yaXNhdGlvbi4gU2kgdm91cyBhdmV6IHJlY3UgY2UgbWVzc2FnZSBw YXIgZXJyZXVyLCB2ZXVpbGxleiBsZSBzaWduYWxlcg0KPmEgbCdleHBlZGl0ZXVyIGV0IGxlIGRl dHJ1aXJlIGFpbnNpIHF1ZSBsZXMgcGllY2VzIGpvaW50ZXMuIExlcyBtZXNzYWdlcyBlbGVjdHJv bmlxdWVzIGV0YW50IHN1c2NlcHRpYmxlcyBkJ2FsdGVyYXRpb24sDQo+T3JhbmdlIGRlY2xpbmUg dG91dGUgcmVzcG9uc2FiaWxpdGUgc2kgY2UgbWVzc2FnZSBhIGV0ZSBhbHRlcmUsIGRlZm9ybWUg b3UgZmFsc2lmaWUuIE1lcmNpLg0KPg0KPlRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBhbmQgaXRzIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRz IG1heSBjb250YWluIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCBvciBwcml2aWxlZ2VkIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHRoYXQg bWF5IGJlIHByb3RlY3RlZCBieSBsYXc7DQo+dGhleSBzaG91bGQgbm90IGJlIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGVk LCB1c2VkIG9yIGNvcGllZCB3aXRob3V0IGF1dGhvcmlzYXRpb24uDQo+SWYgeW91IGhhdmUgcmVj ZWl2ZWQgdGhpcyBlbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZCBk ZWxldGUgdGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBpdHMgYXR0YWNobWVudHMuDQo+QXMgZW1haWxzIG1heSBi ZSBhbHRlcmVkLCBPcmFuZ2UgaXMgbm90IGxpYWJsZSBmb3IgbWVzc2FnZXMgdGhhdCBoYXZlIGJl ZW4gbW9kaWZpZWQsIGNoYW5nZWQgb3IgZmFsc2lmaWVkLg0KPlRoYW5rIHlvdS4NCj4NCj5fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPkJFU1MgbWFpbGlu ZyBsaXN0DQo+QkVTU0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlz dGluZm8vYmVzcw0K From nobody Thu Jul 7 12:42:56 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietf.org Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B11912D1C7; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:42:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.25.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160707194251.23680.82031.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 12:42:51 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-03.txt X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 19:42:51 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS of the IETF. Title : Interconnect Solution for EVPN Overlay networks Authors : Jorge Rabadan Senthil Sathappan Wim Henderickx Senad Palislamovic Ali Sajassi Dennis Cai Filename : draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-03.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2016-07-07 Abstract: This document describes how Network Virtualization Overlay networks (NVO) can be connected to a Wide Area Network (WAN) in order to extend the layer-2 connectivity required for some tenants. The solution analyzes the interaction between NVO networks running EVPN and other L2VPN technologies used in the WAN, such as VPLS/PBB-VPLS or EVPN/PBB-EVPN, and proposes a solution for the interworking between both. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-03 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Jul 7 13:06:35 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980DD12D58A for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:06:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ua_XiCxA-P1N for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:06:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 982A512D89C for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 23A60A869A194; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:06:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u67K6Sno013486 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:06:28 GMT Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u67K6RZA008667 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Jul 2016 22:06:27 +0200 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.160]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 22:06:27 +0200 From: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" To: "bess@ietf.org" , "thomas.morin@orange.com" Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay Thread-Index: AQHR2IsLgwDozl/9+USz5/SLediWRQ== Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:06:27 +0000 Message-ID: <2201F084-63EE-466A-B709-01EADC68384B@nokia.com> References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.151008 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <9C8C46F9D213254C86F741FB6245A275@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 20:06:33 -0000 U3VwcG9ydCBhcyBzdGFuZGFyZC4NCk5vdCBhd2FyZSBvZiBJUFIgcmVsYXRlZCB0byB0aGlzIGRy YWZ0DQoNCldlIGhhdmUgaW1wbGVtZW50ZWQgdGhpcyBpbiBtdWx0aXBsZSBwcm9kdWN0cyBpbiBO b2tpYTogN3g1MCBwcm9kdWN0IGZhbWlseSBhbmQgTnVhZ2UuDQoNCj4NCj5PbiA2LzEzLzE2LCA1 OjI1IEFNLCAiQkVTUyBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgdGhvbWFzLm1vcmluQG9yYW5nZS5jb20iDQo+PGJl c3MtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2YgdGhvbWFzLm1vcmluQG9yYW5nZS5jb20+ IHdyb3RlOg0KPg0KPj5IZWxsbyBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwLA0KPj4NCj4+KFBsZWFzZSByZWFkIGNh cmVmdWxseSwgdGhpcyBlLW1haWwgY29udGFpbnMgbmV3IGVsZW1lbnRzIGNvbXBhcmVkIHRvIFdH DQo+PkxDcyB3ZSB3ZXJlIGRvaW5nIGluIGEgc3RpbGwgcmVjZW50IHBhc3QuKQ0KPj4NCj4+VGhp cyBlbWFpbCBzdGFydHMgYSBXb3JraW5nIEdyb3VwIExhc3QgQ2FsbCBvbg0KPj5kcmFmdC1pZXRm LWJlc3MtZXZwbi1vdmVybGF5IFsxXS4NCj4+DQo+PiogUGxlYXNlIHJlYWQgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50 IGlmIHlvdSBoYXZlbid0IHJlYWQgdGhlIG1vc3QgcmVjZW50DQo+PnZlcnNpb24geWV0LCBhbmQg c2VuZCB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnRzIHRvIHRoZSBsaXN0LCBubyBsYXRlciB0aGFuDQo+PioyN3RoIG9m IEp1bmUqLg0KPj4NCj4+Tm90ZSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgaXMgKm5vdCBvbmx5KiBhIGNhbGwgZm9yIGNv bW1lbnRzIG9uIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCwgYnV0DQo+PmFsc28gYSBjYWxsIGZvciBzdXBwb3J0IChv ciBub3QpIHB1Ymxpc2hpbmcgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBhcyBhIFByb3Bvc2VkDQo+PlN0YW5kYXJk IFJGQy4NCj4+DQo+PiogV2UgYXJlIGFsc28gcG9sbGluZyBmb3Iga25vd2xlZGdlIG9mIGFueSB1 bmRpc2Nsb3NlZCBJUFIgdGhhdCBhcHBsaWVzDQo+PnRvIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYmVzcy1ldnBuLW92 ZXJsYXktMDQsIHRvIGVuc3VyZSB0aGF0IElQUiBoYXMgYmVlbg0KPj5kaXNjbG9zZWQgaW4gY29t cGxpYW5jZSB3aXRoIElFVEYgSVBSIHJ1bGVzIChzZWUgUkZDcyAzOTc5LCA0ODc5LCAzNjY5DQo+ PmFuZCA1Mzc4IGZvciBtb3JlIGRldGFpbHMpIHByaW9yIHRvIG1vdmluZyBmb3J3YXJkLg0KPj5J ZiB5b3UgYXJlIGxpc3RlZCBhcyBhIGRvY3VtZW50IEF1dGhvciBvciBDb250cmlidXRvciBvZg0K Pj50aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHBsZWFzZSByZXNwb25kIHRvIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgYW5kIGluZGljYXRl IHdoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90DQo+PnlvdSBhcmUgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IHJlbGV2YW50IHVuZGlzY2xv c2VkIElQUi4gVGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHdvbid0DQo+PnByb2dyZXNzIHdpdGhvdXQgYW5zd2VycyBm cm9tIGFsbCB0aGUgQXV0aG9ycyBhbmQgQ29udHJpYnV0b3JzLg0KPj4NCj4+KiBXZSBhcmUgYWxz byBwb2xsaW5nIGZvciBrbm93bGVkZ2Ugb2YgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zIG9mIHBhcnQgb3IgYWxs IG9mDQo+PndoYXQgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBzcGVjaWZpZXMuIFRoaXMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gaXMg ZXhwZWN0ZWQgYXMgcGVyIFsyXS4NCj4+UGxlYXNlIGluZm9ybSB0aGUgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0LCB0 aGUgY2hhaXJzLCBvciBvbmx5IG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgY2hhaXJzLg0KPj4NCj4+KiBGaW5hbGx5LCBp ZiB5b3Ugd2FudCB0byB2b2x1bnRlZXIgdG8gYmUgRG9jdW1lbnQgU2hlcGhlcmQgZm9yIHRoaXMN Cj4+ZG9jdW1lbnQsIHBsZWFzZSBsZXQgdXMga25vdy4NCj4+DQo+PlRoYW5rIHlvdSwNCj4+DQo+ PlRob21hcy9NYXJ0aW4NCj4+DQo+Pg0KPj5bMV0gaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9y Zy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1iZXNzLWV2cG4tb3ZlcmxheQ0KPj5bMl0gaHR0cHM6Ly9tYWlsYXJj aGl2ZS5pZXRmLm9yZy9hcmNoL21zZy9iZXNzL2NHM1gxdFRxYl92UEM0cmc1NlNFZGtqcURwdw0K Pj4NCj4+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4+DQo+PkNlIG1lc3NhZ2UgZXQgc2VzIHBpZWNlcyBqb2ludGVz IHBldXZlbnQgY29udGVuaXIgZGVzIGluZm9ybWF0aW9ucw0KPj5jb25maWRlbnRpZWxsZXMgb3Ug cHJpdmlsZWdpZWVzIGV0IG5lIGRvaXZlbnQgZG9uYw0KPj5wYXMgZXRyZSBkaWZmdXNlcywgZXhw bG9pdGVzIG91IGNvcGllcyBzYW5zIGF1dG9yaXNhdGlvbi4gU2kgdm91cyBhdmV6DQo+PnJlY3Ug Y2UgbWVzc2FnZSBwYXIgZXJyZXVyLCB2ZXVpbGxleiBsZSBzaWduYWxlcg0KPj5hIGwnZXhwZWRp dGV1ciBldCBsZSBkZXRydWlyZSBhaW5zaSBxdWUgbGVzIHBpZWNlcyBqb2ludGVzLiBMZXMgbWVz c2FnZXMNCj4+ZWxlY3Ryb25pcXVlcyBldGFudCBzdXNjZXB0aWJsZXMgZCdhbHRlcmF0aW9uLA0K Pj5PcmFuZ2UgZGVjbGluZSB0b3V0ZSByZXNwb25zYWJpbGl0ZSBzaSBjZSBtZXNzYWdlIGEgZXRl IGFsdGVyZSwgZGVmb3JtZQ0KPj5vdSBmYWxzaWZpZS4gTWVyY2kuDQo+Pg0KPj5UaGlzIG1lc3Nh Z2UgYW5kIGl0cyBhdHRhY2htZW50cyBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgb3IgcHJpdmls ZWdlZA0KPj5pbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB0aGF0IG1heSBiZSBwcm90ZWN0ZWQgYnkgbGF3Ow0KPj50aGV5 IHNob3VsZCBub3QgYmUgZGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQsIHVzZWQgb3IgY29waWVkIHdpdGhvdXQgYXV0aG9y aXNhdGlvbi4NCj4+SWYgeW91IGhhdmUgcmVjZWl2ZWQgdGhpcyBlbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxl YXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZA0KPj5kZWxldGUgdGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBpdHMg YXR0YWNobWVudHMuDQo+PkFzIGVtYWlscyBtYXkgYmUgYWx0ZXJlZCwgT3JhbmdlIGlzIG5vdCBs aWFibGUgZm9yIG1lc3NhZ2VzIHRoYXQgaGF2ZQ0KPj5iZWVuIG1vZGlmaWVkLCBjaGFuZ2VkIG9y IGZhbHNpZmllZC4NCj4+VGhhbmsgeW91Lg0KPj4NCj4+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4+QkVTUyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4+QkVTU0BpZXRm Lm9yZw0KPj5odHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2Jlc3MNCj4NCg== From nobody Thu Jul 7 13:11:21 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72FAF12B068 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:11:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.921 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B0xUP41MNuxT for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-us.alcatel-lucent.com (us-hpswa-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.18.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A97812B034 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us70uumx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.18.16]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id C12D8FBAA7477; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:11:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.66]) by us70uumx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u67KBF2O032659 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:11:15 GMT Received: from US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.36]) by us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u67KBFk0004989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:11:15 GMT Received: from US70TWXCHMBA10.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.4.101]) by US70TWXCHHUB04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 16:11:15 -0400 From: "Oya Luengo, Roberto (Nokia - US)" To: "bess@ietf.org" , "thomas.morin@orange.com" Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay Thread-Index: AQHR2IsLgwDozl/9+USz5/SLediWRaANNAkA Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:11:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> <2201F084-63EE-466A-B709-01EADC68384B@nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <2201F084-63EE-466A-B709-01EADC68384B@nokia.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.8.151023 x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.18] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <694804B2592C5D41A9226008AE9781A0@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 20:11:19 -0000 Support > >> >>On 6/13/16, 5:25 AM, "BESS on behalf of thomas.morin@orange.com" >> wrote: >> >>>Hello Working Group, >>> >>>(Please read carefully, this e-mail contains new elements compared to WG >>>LCs we were doing in a still recent past.) >>> >>>This email starts a Working Group Last Call on >>>draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay [1]. >>> >>>* Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent >>>version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than >>>*27th of June*. >>> >>>Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document, but >>>also a call for support (or not) publishing this document as a Proposed >>>Standard RFC. >>> >>>* We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies >>>to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, to ensure that IPR has been >>>disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 >>>and 5378 for more details) prior to moving forward. >>>If you are listed as a document Author or Contributor of >>>this document please respond to this email and indicate whether or not >>>you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The document won't >>>progress without answers from all the Authors and Contributors. >>> >>>* We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of >>>what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. >>>Please inform the mailing list, the chairs, or only one of the chairs. >>> >>>* Finally, if you want to volunteer to be Document Shepherd for this >>>document, please let us know. >>> >>>Thank you, >>> >>>Thomas/Martin >>> >>> >>>[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay >>>[2]=20 >>>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw >>> >>>________________________________________________________________________ >>>__ >>>_______________________________________________ >>> >>>Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >>>confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >>>pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez >>>recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >>>a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >>>electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >>>Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme >>>ou falsifie. Merci. >>> >>>This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >>>information that may be protected by law; >>>they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >>>If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >>>delete this message and its attachments. >>>As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have >>>been modified, changed or falsified. >>>Thank you. >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>BESS mailing list >>>BESS@ietf.org >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >> >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Thu Jul 7 13:24:23 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C3D12D8A1 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:24:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24YlSj1oBetl for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEC8512D108 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-x233.google.com with SMTP id dx3so8813450pab.2 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=8KuIwCIiLxJE0a9aTQwdpSW+LI/WWERFqph1tf9yDSo=; b=SqvF4cM7aJCgpjo8s+QQJK3cwZnB9pCEhvq8ZNBxgL6d1ipGfV06Ln4/sbnVV9rzhi 0L1CmbAHE8NtbgviivZGwIG/oyc99Q3qM4hoZkM5WRPTrWmo12n5+nzXRY3buasD6RRW SU736R7IEOeuwyBzfk7eM+8gWFe8sLKHR3r55KY/8FyvDDZQpdRXREB1m/Y7q0SKVhSF adM+CkqJSINHr8JH5Q8anei79j/kHpoH0SXsZMGoiZTx8pjzxchGzg5WI4N1pA1cYEZZ Oh1D7TuMdjBADO6Q41xlhe8+ZQLdAZRXubFCvKloTwd3Wt9t+97pOumdpcIz2K+ds2vw xWHw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=8KuIwCIiLxJE0a9aTQwdpSW+LI/WWERFqph1tf9yDSo=; b=DczP8sOcLGyl2TJLQsR2pl8Z0bvrpSGfyQLKGtg037pfLAy4ov9O/NVuE3EqRZGh+F I0MkdUuWBz7poFhtGjh348ikef97OQirJJaoM3+STRZtZ40lw28HacoqLrC7qpucwYw7 zcffEkhsT8pybmRIy33yQBhqRRhhVcsoPxzt9kNkfTNpusZI9M/WHit0HBhDPohAtsG+ 84JwsTX9oXeCrcI/wZ0p1UdFbZfcYB1L0MbaEO5grCZdzOk5syRUnprcO+Y6s1v4Tkl3 kNyDY2XSVpesnDuGsjNlrfpQC0tlrtiKJJgAAhXSD+aVHijoEgkNwTIB1g/LaEDKdPp8 8CRw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLBT3YQKm7p7ZbZ+xIlYvfrLYJhUmItMnkIpR3HqYN37px5O1z++9Opu34WJYXDfw== X-Received: by 10.66.148.162 with SMTP id tt2mr3419990pab.53.1467923060229; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.137.141.2] (mobile-166-137-177-234.mycingular.net. [166.137.177.234]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id uj5sm6429486pac.28.2016.07.07.13.24.19 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Jeff Tantsura X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13F69) In-Reply-To: <303F39B2-4811-4342-9D1D-258650C50FE1@nokia.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:24:18 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> <303F39B2-4811-4342-9D1D-258650C50FE1@nokia.com> To: "thomas.morin@orange.com" Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org" , BESS Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 20:24:22 -0000 Support! >=20 >> On 6/13/16, 5:25 AM, "BESS on behalf of thomas.morin@orange.com" wrote: >>=20 >> Hello Working Group, >>=20 >> (Please read carefully, this e-mail contains new elements compared to WG=20= >> LCs we were doing in a still recent past.) >>=20 >> This email starts a Working Group Last Call on >> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay [1]. >>=20 >> * Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent >> version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than >> *27th of June*. >>=20 >> Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document, but=20 >> also a call for support (or not) publishing this document as a Proposed=20= >> Standard RFC. >>=20 >> * We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies=20= >> to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, to ensure that IPR has been=20 >> disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669=20= >> and 5378 for more details) prior to moving forward. >> If you are listed as a document Author or Contributor of >> this document please respond to this email and indicate whether or not=20= >> you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The document won't=20 >> progress without answers from all the Authors and Contributors. >>=20 >> * We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of=20= >> what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2].=20= >> Please inform the mailing list, the chairs, or only one of the chairs. >>=20 >> * Finally, if you want to volunteer to be Document Shepherd for this=20 >> document, please let us know. >>=20 >> Thank you, >>=20 >> Thomas/Martin >>=20 >>=20 >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay >> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDp= w >>=20 >> _________________________________________________________________________= ________________________________________________ >>=20 >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confid= entielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez re= cu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages e= lectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme o= u falsifie. Merci. >>=20 >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged i= nformation that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and de= lete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have bee= n modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> BESS mailing list >> BESS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Thu Jul 7 13:37:30 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80FC12D5AD for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:37:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oWXONodB7Lsh for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D28B112D1F0 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:37:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3319; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467923845; x=1469133445; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Mgvm2THAIUT4KHBRldfKFTV5yh0M0slxFKw8+b3HsWw=; b=ExRLBcPiS4HlKEk14fzwkiWYZr9D5mYG5C0v4yko8o8jtuexE7/zgV17 yn5qobum7sART98Cv3rzoewbNuqz46FeMZ89Hxk6Z8zOHaoCPR0jzA+qq aKSi5XZHDgd9Q7kKUQcDxbU1qTnvmnWyk1gTuN1ELH308s+VUvIf3s8AO 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D7AQAKvX5X/5JdJa1bgz5WfAa5C4F7I?= =?us-ascii?q?oV2AoEsOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeETAEBBAEBARsdNAsMBAIBCBEEAQEfCQcnCxQJCAI?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQ0FCIggCA69CwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARcFhieETYQSEQGFdwWZE?= =?us-ascii?q?wGGCHCHR4FxhFaDLoU8kAkBHjaCPIE1bodhNn8BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,325,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="127001793" Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Jul 2016 20:37:24 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u67KbOol008979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:37:24 GMT Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:37:24 -0500 Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:37:24 -0500 From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" To: "thomas.morin@orange.com" , BESS Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay Thread-Index: AQHRxW657gKqs/PxGUmsuiM9MD/Q9qANk4SQ Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:37:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.24.45.248] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 20:37:28 -0000 I support this document. I am not aware of IPR relevant to this document. Thanks, Jakob. > -----Original Message----- > From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of thomas.morin@orang= e.com > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 5:26 AM > To: BESS > Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for dra= ft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay >=20 > Hello Working Group, >=20 > (Please read carefully, this e-mail contains new elements compared to WG > LCs we were doing in a still recent past.) >=20 > This email starts a Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay [1]. >=20 > * Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent > version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than > *27th of June*. >=20 > Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document, but > also a call for support (or not) publishing this document as a Proposed > Standard RFC. >=20 > * We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies > to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, to ensure that IPR has been > disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 > and 5378 for more details) prior to moving forward. > If you are listed as a document Author or Contributor of > this document please respond to this email and indicate whether or not > you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The document won't > progress without answers from all the Authors and Contributors. >=20 > * We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of > what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. > Please inform the mailing list, the chairs, or only one of the chairs. >=20 > * Finally, if you want to volunteer to be Document Shepherd for this > document, please let us know. >=20 > Thank you, >=20 > Thomas/Martin >=20 >=20 > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDp= w >=20 > _________________________________________________________________________= ___________________________________________ > _____ >=20 > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confid= entielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent > donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez re= cu ce message par erreur, veuillez le > signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages = electroniques etant susceptibles > d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme o= u falsifie. Merci. >=20 > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged i= nformation that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and de= lete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have bee= n modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Thu Jul 7 14:08:06 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D76812B01D for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:08:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9SyVAeOfMb3k for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:08:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB49F12D123 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:08:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4656; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467925680; x=1469135280; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=HCpXtpkaoXNxkxE54++yhToSMzcBsfmhCw6J8RmU1nI=; b=iV2QRSWePaI0R42cO3NSwbQ9ZExFwwO1wXG/6CPrLwfhZkBpCNs3FVk3 PW+7Y8Z8wBOjmq/n1mfALs8DiytoUaOlQWE/sJhZchkBSbTQ7vDcO7Qha pemPmbUcWRfIfAv7bgp16pytdHidkL82y7UZ6SUQhD68w7iHZLuaM1Iye o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D7AQAKxH5X/5hdJa1bgz5WfAa5C4F7I?= =?us-ascii?q?oV2AhyBEDgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEwBAQUBARsGEToLDAQCAQgRBAEBAwIjAwICAiU?= =?us-ascii?q?LFAEICAIEAQ0FiDAOrUWPRAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARcFgQGFJoF4C?= =?us-ascii?q?IJNhBIRARwXgmorgi8Fk1mFOgGGCHCHToFqhFaDLoU8kAkBHjaCPIE1bodhNn8?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,325,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="293147653" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Jul 2016 21:07:59 +0000 Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u67L7xse008064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Jul 2016 21:07:59 GMT Received: from xch-rtp-012.cisco.com (64.101.220.152) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:07:58 -0400 Received: from xch-rtp-012.cisco.com ([64.101.220.152]) by XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com ([64.101.220.152]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:07:58 -0400 From: "Satya Mohanty (satyamoh)" To: "thomas.morin@orange.com" , BESS Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay Thread-Index: AQHRxW67PO57kLz3N0+RpKW6o40En6AN1uwA//+TMgA= Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 21:07:58 +0000 Message-ID: <346EF4C8-189C-4673-BFA8-183F8462BEEA@cisco.com> References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.154.161.45] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <0D18FA0809562F4A83ADE0983B72CFF4@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 21:08:04 -0000 U3VwcG9ydC4NCg0KVGhhbmtzLA0K4oCUU2F0eWENCg0KDQoNCg0KPg0KPj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5h bCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCj4+IEZyb206IEJFU1MgW21haWx0bzpiZXNzLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5v cmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiB0aG9tYXMubW9yaW5Ab3JhbmdlLmNvbQ0KPj4gU2VudDogTW9uZGF5 LCBKdW5lIDEzLCAyMDE2IDU6MjYgQU0NCj4+IFRvOiBCRVNTIDxiZXNzQGlldGYub3JnPg0KPj4g Q2M6IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYmVzcy1ldnBuLW92ZXJsYXlAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4+IFN1Ympl Y3Q6IFtiZXNzXSBXRyBMYXN0IENhbGwgKGluY2x1ZGluZyBpbXBsZW0gc3RhdHVzICYgc2hlcGhl cmQpIGZvciBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWJlc3MtZXZwbi1vdmVybGF5DQo+PiANCj4+IEhlbGxvIFdvcmtp bmcgR3JvdXAsDQo+PiANCj4+IChQbGVhc2UgcmVhZCBjYXJlZnVsbHksIHRoaXMgZS1tYWlsIGNv bnRhaW5zIG5ldyBlbGVtZW50cyBjb21wYXJlZCB0byBXRw0KPj4gTENzIHdlIHdlcmUgZG9pbmcg aW4gYSBzdGlsbCByZWNlbnQgcGFzdC4pDQo+PiANCj4+IFRoaXMgZW1haWwgc3RhcnRzIGEgV29y a2luZyBHcm91cCBMYXN0IENhbGwgb24NCj4+IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtYmVzcy1ldnBuLW92ZXJsYXkg WzFdLg0KPj4gDQo+PiAqIFBsZWFzZSByZWFkIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBpZiB5b3UgaGF2ZW4ndCBy ZWFkIHRoZSBtb3N0IHJlY2VudA0KPj4gdmVyc2lvbiB5ZXQsIGFuZCBzZW5kIHlvdXIgY29tbWVu dHMgdG8gdGhlIGxpc3QsIG5vIGxhdGVyIHRoYW4NCj4+ICoyN3RoIG9mIEp1bmUqLg0KPj4gDQo+ PiBOb3RlIHRoYXQgdGhpcyBpcyAqbm90IG9ubHkqIGEgY2FsbCBmb3IgY29tbWVudHMgb24gdGhl IGRvY3VtZW50LCBidXQNCj4+IGFsc28gYSBjYWxsIGZvciBzdXBwb3J0IChvciBub3QpIHB1Ymxp c2hpbmcgdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBhcyBhIFByb3Bvc2VkDQo+PiBTdGFuZGFyZCBSRkMuDQo+PiAN Cj4+ICogV2UgYXJlIGFsc28gcG9sbGluZyBmb3Iga25vd2xlZGdlIG9mIGFueSB1bmRpc2Nsb3Nl ZCBJUFIgdGhhdCBhcHBsaWVzDQo+PiB0byBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWJlc3MtZXZwbi1vdmVybGF5LTA0 LCB0byBlbnN1cmUgdGhhdCBJUFIgaGFzIGJlZW4NCj4+IGRpc2Nsb3NlZCBpbiBjb21wbGlhbmNl IHdpdGggSUVURiBJUFIgcnVsZXMgKHNlZSBSRkNzIDM5NzksIDQ4NzksIDM2NjkNCj4+IGFuZCA1 Mzc4IGZvciBtb3JlIGRldGFpbHMpIHByaW9yIHRvIG1vdmluZyBmb3J3YXJkLg0KPj4gSWYgeW91 IGFyZSBsaXN0ZWQgYXMgYSBkb2N1bWVudCBBdXRob3Igb3IgQ29udHJpYnV0b3Igb2YNCj4+IHRo aXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgcGxlYXNlIHJlc3BvbmQgdG8gdGhpcyBlbWFpbCBhbmQgaW5kaWNhdGUgd2hl dGhlciBvciBub3QNCj4+IHlvdSBhcmUgYXdhcmUgb2YgYW55IHJlbGV2YW50IHVuZGlzY2xvc2Vk IElQUi4gVGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHdvbid0DQo+PiBwcm9ncmVzcyB3aXRob3V0IGFuc3dlcnMgZnJv bSBhbGwgdGhlIEF1dGhvcnMgYW5kIENvbnRyaWJ1dG9ycy4NCj4+IA0KPj4gKiBXZSBhcmUgYWxz byBwb2xsaW5nIGZvciBrbm93bGVkZ2Ugb2YgaW1wbGVtZW50YXRpb25zIG9mIHBhcnQgb3IgYWxs IG9mDQo+PiB3aGF0IHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgc3BlY2lmaWVzLiBUaGlzIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGlz IGV4cGVjdGVkIGFzIHBlciBbMl0uDQo+PiBQbGVhc2UgaW5mb3JtIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Qs IHRoZSBjaGFpcnMsIG9yIG9ubHkgb25lIG9mIHRoZSBjaGFpcnMuDQo+PiANCj4+ICogRmluYWxs eSwgaWYgeW91IHdhbnQgdG8gdm9sdW50ZWVyIHRvIGJlIERvY3VtZW50IFNoZXBoZXJkIGZvciB0 aGlzDQo+PiBkb2N1bWVudCwgcGxlYXNlIGxldCB1cyBrbm93Lg0KPj4gDQo+PiBUaGFuayB5b3Us DQo+PiANCj4+IFRob21hcy9NYXJ0aW4NCj4+IA0KPj4gDQo+PiBbMV0gaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJh Y2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1iZXNzLWV2cG4tb3ZlcmxheQ0KPj4gWzJdIGh0 dHBzOi8vbWFpbGFyY2hpdmUuaWV0Zi5vcmcvYXJjaC9tc2cvYmVzcy9jRzNYMXRUcWJfdlBDNHJn NTZTRWRranFEcHcNCj4+IA0KPj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4+IF9fX19fDQo+PiANCj4+IENlIG1lc3NhZ2UgZXQg c2VzIHBpZWNlcyBqb2ludGVzIHBldXZlbnQgY29udGVuaXIgZGVzIGluZm9ybWF0aW9ucyBjb25m aWRlbnRpZWxsZXMgb3UgcHJpdmlsZWdpZWVzIGV0IG5lIGRvaXZlbnQNCj4+IGRvbmMNCj4+IHBh cyBldHJlIGRpZmZ1c2VzLCBleHBsb2l0ZXMgb3UgY29waWVzIHNhbnMgYXV0b3Jpc2F0aW9uLiBT aSB2b3VzIGF2ZXogcmVjdSBjZSBtZXNzYWdlIHBhciBlcnJldXIsIHZldWlsbGV6IGxlDQo+PiBz aWduYWxlcg0KPj4gYSBsJ2V4cGVkaXRldXIgZXQgbGUgZGV0cnVpcmUgYWluc2kgcXVlIGxlcyBw aWVjZXMgam9pbnRlcy4gTGVzIG1lc3NhZ2VzIGVsZWN0cm9uaXF1ZXMgZXRhbnQgc3VzY2VwdGli bGVzDQo+PiBkJ2FsdGVyYXRpb24sDQo+PiBPcmFuZ2UgZGVjbGluZSB0b3V0ZSByZXNwb25zYWJp bGl0ZSBzaSBjZSBtZXNzYWdlIGEgZXRlIGFsdGVyZSwgZGVmb3JtZSBvdSBmYWxzaWZpZS4gTWVy Y2kuDQo+PiANCj4+IFRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBhbmQgaXRzIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIG1heSBjb250YWlu IGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCBvciBwcml2aWxlZ2VkIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHRoYXQgbWF5IGJlIHByb3Rl Y3RlZCBieSBsYXc7DQo+PiB0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBub3QgYmUgZGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQsIHVzZWQgb3Ig Y29waWVkIHdpdGhvdXQgYXV0aG9yaXNhdGlvbi4NCj4+IElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIHJlY2VpdmVkIHRo aXMgZW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IsIHBsZWFzZSBub3RpZnkgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBhbmQgZGVsZXRlIHRo aXMgbWVzc2FnZSBhbmQgaXRzIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzLg0KPj4gQXMgZW1haWxzIG1heSBiZSBhbHRl cmVkLCBPcmFuZ2UgaXMgbm90IGxpYWJsZSBmb3IgbWVzc2FnZXMgdGhhdCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gbW9k aWZpZWQsIGNoYW5nZWQgb3IgZmFsc2lmaWVkLg0KPj4gVGhhbmsgeW91Lg0KPj4gDQo+PiBfX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPj4gQkVTUyBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QNCj4+IEJFU1NAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxt YW4vbGlzdGluZm8vYmVzcw0KPg0KPl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+QkVTUyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj5CRVNTQGlldGYub3JnDQo+aHR0cHM6 Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9iZXNzDQo= From nobody Thu Jul 7 17:11:28 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5608112D7A7 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:11:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.922 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3LW4oN_Rd2tP for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02on0122.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 164FF12D11F for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:11:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Y3N5OPvH1FPNoyDNAALopLUSy8Pw7GkrNVZfhDSokCI=; b=hFuEoQnPbk/OjUMT0EP8bT9h0DaCjwSClxM8You3UMM369kIchbtkV+PjmUDLPqDs5WhvE/IErxdisemv41wV9hzkJJ1uVn6eK7i+ANMJK0qREwOTJPqR8xD81ARPrWqmhQUScbD1Rfxv7P2Ox4rL4D2YdIE7ErFqxkMoRi/siY= Received: from BL2PR05MB2211.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.167.98.147) by BL2PR05MB2210.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.167.98.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.523.12; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 00:11:22 +0000 Received: from BL2PR05MB2211.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.98.147]) by BL2PR05MB2211.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.98.147]) with mapi id 15.01.0523.028; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 00:11:23 +0000 From: Ravi Shekhar To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" , "EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com" , BESS Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay Thread-Index: AQHRxW63+PmPVHtPxUC/Kxkuq3y3FaAH04EAgAX8GKA= Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 00:11:22 +0000 Message-ID: References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rshekhar@juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [66.129.239.10] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e6993779-14df-4849-6e09-08d3a6c46526 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BL2PR05MB2210; 6:rIqGt32io16CR2fp5Py43NPSh0AxHcbfuthRE6tDm7hFXb03rdF712kFTIiUzWI6nPpu+FUYKYkI/LbEcKpPizvQLTK0/DzwH9+jmvH4novcEqYv2Ry0qhivFfYIymX3+FhPpJMm/tuwwe4bE3QYBk8lJJl8DbAOE8oGDq1VkhuWC962J8AgAx+f+2yn9PZCt1HDrMhiIL13B0eufNKVpKwqJ3PROL+QOits2ZNM4JM9tXQaXBnzBJgbWXCjwUo809Ebl1xNH7mbKtWCT3ifX7ioUisB4gzkq576RUCZx6ZH2pqgJeVuGJsQSlNo3Y0TgOF2lX50b53RC1KCB6PYgw==; 5:63jFafe2iyi66OifbMW/F6brLJhuaqXaUVLqfYlwnK1rSGNheiz4X3BbnSs7VWAWApZFkKFjWk8f9OxYllGhxpDw4enspvlFRAzklBb38Y4W3gg2lgwN8krg6aF8lFHVRg6LnRXZH52YkkeBfl1F2g==; 24:sJ8Do7s5KMXgFsqZDOayP78i17bagOVNL2MKfSW490bETQo6sZ4BrouBFR7zwJZD2Wh9A/vMS0oVxRePiDMk3HbJAhXhgPlBeMWJltWjZSQ=; 7:dmnGl2efAyC9DQKP90y7PdmRIeWSUacv2VHw/kC+7dfmJk4LqY9aUlFTq0FEhzZ4jKImpqM+e1OCfsRlNYNXEDQrXUDuwCKAFHfddCSSs35mC//spIkAe5mlonGirHoLRVLB/ODIwjSYpMghHk4XsI8M5GLMSg/OscVLdhYtnOiyW2LXw9wJn7nML9QX8kUQTizVGNyRkiprlowL1Ji9UiTpgl7IzmkjucVlY1lsaY244SVmXrM2eXe8GF92Pj5u x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BL2PR05MB2210; x-ld-processed: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4,ExtAddr x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(131327999870524)(18271650672692); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026); SRVR:BL2PR05MB2210; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BL2PR05MB2210; x-forefront-prvs: 0997523C40 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(24454002)(199003)(377454003)(189002)(13464003)(68736007)(101416001)(9686002)(230783001)(305945005)(5003600100003)(7696003)(106116001)(8936002)(86362001)(74316002)(105586002)(7846002)(66066001)(8676002)(3280700002)(189998001)(7736002)(81156014)(54356999)(76176999)(3660700001)(50986999)(5890100001)(87936001)(81166006)(5002640100001)(122556002)(77096005)(99286002)(19580395003)(2906002)(19580405001)(6116002)(5001770100001)(2900100001)(102836003)(4326007)(3846002)(106356001)(10400500002)(2950100001)(92566002)(586003)(97736004)(76576001)(15975445007)(33656002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR05MB2210; H:BL2PR05MB2211.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Jul 2016 00:11:22.8788 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL2PR05MB2210 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 00:11:27 -0000 Support as a co-author. Not aware of any IPR. - Ravi. -----Original Message----- From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi= ) Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2016 9:48 PM To: EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com ; BESS Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for d= raft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay I support WG LC of this draft as a co-author. This draft has been implement= ed in Cisco switches for a while. Furthermore, I am not aware of any IPR th= at hasn=B9t been already disclosed. Regards, Ali On 6/13/16, 5:25 AM, "BESS on behalf of thomas.morin@orange.com" wrote: >Hello Working Group, > >(Please read carefully, this e-mail contains new elements compared to=20 >WG LCs we were doing in a still recent past.) > >This email starts a Working Group Last Call on=20 >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay [1]. > >* Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent version=20 >yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than *27th of June*. > >Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document, but=20 >also a call for support (or not) publishing this document as a Proposed=20 >Standard RFC. > >* We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies=20 >to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, to ensure that IPR has been=20 >disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669=20 >and 5378 for more details) prior to moving forward. >If you are listed as a document Author or Contributor of this document=20 >please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware=20 >of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without=20 >answers from all the Authors and Contributors. > >* We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all=20 >of what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. >Please inform the mailing list, the chairs, or only one of the chairs. > >* Finally, if you want to volunteer to be Document Shepherd for this=20 >document, please let us know. > >Thank you, > >Thomas/Martin > > >[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay >[2]=20 >https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw > >_______________________________________________________________________ >___ _______________________________________________ > >Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations=20 >confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,=20 >exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par=20 >erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que=20 >les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles=20 >d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete=20 >altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > >This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged=20 >information that may be protected by law; they should not be=20 >distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and=20 >delete this message and its attachments. >As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have=20 >been modified, changed or falsified. >Thank you. > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Thu Jul 7 18:23:28 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2739D12D522 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:23:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.921 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ogpF18vMcI85 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-us.alcatel-lucent.com (us-hpswa-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.18.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC87F12D5FC for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from us70uumx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.18.16]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 489CD4018DF13; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 01:23:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.66]) by us70uumx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u681NNWH012756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 01:23:23 GMT Received: from US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.49]) by us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u681NNd3018634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 01:23:23 GMT Received: from US70UWXCHMBA03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.9.234]) by US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 21:23:22 -0400 From: "Dolganow, Andrew (Nokia - SG)" To: "thomas.morin@orange.com" , BESS Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay Thread-Index: AQHR2LdRhvvlGprX9kClnn2MyUn1fw== Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 01:23:22 +0000 Message-ID: References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.5.160527 x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.16] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 01:23:27 -0000 Support. Andrew On 2016-06-13, 8:25 PM, "BESS on behalf of thomas.morin@orange.com" wrote: >Hello Working Group, > >(Please read carefully, this e-mail contains new elements compared to WG >LCs we were doing in a still recent past.) > >This email starts a Working Group Last Call on >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay [1]. > >* Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent >version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than >*27th of June*. > >Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document, but >also a call for support (or not) publishing this document as a Proposed >Standard RFC. > >* We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies >to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, to ensure that IPR has been >disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 >and 5378 for more details) prior to moving forward. >If you are listed as a document Author or Contributor of >this document please respond to this email and indicate whether or not >you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The document won't >progress without answers from all the Authors and Contributors. > >* We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of >what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. >Please inform the mailing list, the chairs, or only one of the chairs. > >* Finally, if you want to volunteer to be Document Shepherd for this >document, please let us know. > >Thank you, > >Thomas/Martin > > >[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay >[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw > >__________________________________________________________________________ >_______________________________________________ > >Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez >recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme >ou falsifie. Merci. > >This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >information that may be protected by law; >they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >delete this message and its attachments. >As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have >been modified, changed or falsified. >Thank you. > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Thu Jul 7 18:51:36 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22BA12B022 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:51:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nuagenetworks-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 43bIzfqyplFv for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DD66127078 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id t127so30285424qkf.1 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 18:51:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nuagenetworks-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dBVkoLebyQSZ87XSJKeFZEx0CB+vzHsxelS2xUqLn6U=; b=qp7dqRPBq37TdrV0F5icSXy34tJVGpHhJ4U8c0dNmgowkP8IzTvBpxSTIls0S/w04P HYirT0UO5VoOrfxEfZ2/LorThrEcHdW6UV6NSa5SQ3+/EYtZxF3xwKjsRKPbQcz3GJYR SSX6VNkfqhoGkTjZ0WY4ypqWvS4ueXhIN1CNfnol7jVsHQGCyB2kGECb1cxRLbXvHvRl 5Gb7Vj5aa6tAkQnC+27dX2pAGtKykiPmHMJ3vrp1i1SH1l0szb1IqTngLZvmL6dmWf22 804Nn0RjTi7Lyv3PRcsfsguxaEjjZezyfGn5aspflWBbK5I3MSiIexD9wkAb/43EPLfL NLkg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dBVkoLebyQSZ87XSJKeFZEx0CB+vzHsxelS2xUqLn6U=; b=NyHswOaD9+sa/KSmbXoRh14uDvCWAKmqtwGf93j9ZRbJlPyEocmCOOR+WSuM4LJRnH l88Mglhp4tBKI4U+wKL8jqaqnZBum6TOCF2Ybv4rFxm1ooAi/AeLUZo3FpGU1Wighipy mCkXW3X8exrkZ1OmcC8ArJucXGeqSsP/Zx2Erxjp5hAUwOZi6f28v1Yigy7gTO2nzXLA 6ru0J43g0B8eYDAG7YDHoQRxuIVUZSJ0nq9ueUYoO0idI3HaZQWyKFnK2U7wS7zFnJsK CQvn7wmczVGTwyMhHmMTqv1tWyqkeV8d/jZxyjNdPfh7x8X4QsucI4Leae0BwaU865bf 9TVA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKMFVwu1VA7e/KNyvvubJiDZnXFOY6zhIQ7pzg13Kwanp2Y2djn0iouUCY6mkeqzusD X-Received: by 10.55.106.135 with SMTP id f129mr4594904qkc.118.1467942691664; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 18:51:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.10] (ool-2f125189.dyn.optonline.net. [47.18.81.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f53sm2567980qtf.25.2016.07.07.18.51.31 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jul 2016 18:51:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Nabeel Cocker X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13F69) In-Reply-To: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 21:51:30 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2DC4B9BA-F61C-4C25-9697-BD5FE44A2AF3@nuagenetworks.net> References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> To: thomas.morin@orange.com Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org" , BESS Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 01:51:35 -0000 Support.=20 Regards, Nabeel > On Jun 13, 2016, at 8:25 AM, wrote: >=20 > Hello Working Group, >=20 > (Please read carefully, this e-mail contains new elements compared to WG L= Cs we were doing in a still recent past.) >=20 > This email starts a Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay [1]. >=20 > * Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent > version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than > *27th of June*. >=20 > Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document, but also= a call for support (or not) publishing this document as a Proposed Standard= RFC. >=20 > * We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to= draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in c= ompliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more d= etails) prior to moving forward. > If you are listed as a document Author or Contributor of > this document please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you= are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress with= out answers from all the Authors and Contributors. >=20 > * We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of w= hat this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. Please= inform the mailing list, the chairs, or only one of the chairs. >=20 > * Finally, if you want to volunteer to be Document Shepherd for this docum= ent, please let us know. >=20 > Thank you, >=20 > Thomas/Martin >=20 >=20 > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw= >=20 > __________________________________________________________________________= _______________________________________________ >=20 > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confide= ntielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez rec= u ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages e= lectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou= falsifie. Merci. >=20 > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged in= formation that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and del= ete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been= modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Fri Jul 8 10:19:38 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietf.org Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFC0127058; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:19:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.25.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160708171934.32193.90230.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 10:19:34 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-01.txt X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 17:19:34 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS of the IETF. Title : Yang Data Model for EVPN Authors : Patrice Brissette Ali Sajassi Himanshu Shah Zhenbin Li Kishore Tiruveedhula Iftekar Hussain Jorge Rabadan Filename : draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-01.txt Pages : 26 Date : 2016-07-08 Abstract: This document describes a YANG data model for Ethernet VPN services. The model is agnostic of the underlay. It apply to MPLS as well as to VxLAN encapsulation. The model is also agnostic of the services including E-LAN, E-LINE and E-TREE services. Any "add-on" features such as EVPN IRB, EVPN overlay, etc. are for future investigation. This document mainly focuses on EVPN and Ethernet-Segment instance framework. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-yang-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Jul 8 11:46:37 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220CA12D736 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:46:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.922 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EtlKDg0Y11o3 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM01-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam01on0132.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.34.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B02E412D83E for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:46:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=YfIo4Gkp1mO0gPELOmgDuXgujHLiO3QHm/13g8eQA9o=; b=Kba6v5Av8MMMm/bxgNr2sYIrkPYFfjx4a5w2gLVIDiGRL1pWUESfo4azSVKs1A0MMX9+M8hqDws1ShulwwJ36LSmafE19PtY0rXYVGMiA7T6PGvaJuUpAQQ64qPForSK6C9RYrimZ8HDlkEWGVX19ZDIpvhB7k8A0jQjK11Isms= Received: from CY4PR05MB2934.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.169.183.144) by CY4PR05MB2936.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.169.183.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.534.8; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:46:17 +0000 Received: from CY4PR05MB2934.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.183.144]) by CY4PR05MB2934.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.183.144]) with mapi id 15.01.0523.028; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:46:17 +0000 From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" To: "EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com" , BESS Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay Thread-Index: AQHRxW6356Ebc7RWk0yWOtJBwh9cjqAPAcwg Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:46:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=zzhang@juniper.net; x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f5613251-5166-4cb4-ed20-08d3a7602565 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY4PR05MB2936; 6:R0LzZrBneXcIebQvjiby+ldY1SKvCGBZB1Dl/mZRxOq+hVa+Qo7ficOT2oL9vIsrEiVTDXIFDSfjO12CQTzrrWvt8IrNrvdShYH9Dh5y+pkvCqO6wynJUaPTHVX1OqJnY+AX3H/RqeDgzK5ynrq5Yngh1vMaEzcaWdkA3INKjKvUikMyHP7a5i/KUW25kW2coK1eU7O77NX0Ov2A3tK9SVVY83HCiffEkbp9KFREeAsnwHosCcc3+mmJNnVFqItQrzTYks+e2+kto5a7fDon0ASoCGXmz34+yCwbcxrcOBwQ66mVwTxGS8PIesWQ3yd70jYUyatuQLMvfTDAyyt6rA==; 5:rT7Wt+VYSm4QGrJx/9qoJRStWl6clzuSxDq+oZ9TDF9ALKAaGTgOhiHbUeYbnxM53eZUf/XQW/WplSsmJXbCWGWeN/w0akrGOUQXo21zhH9mLZlRPNQpBKyH6sYNI4rGNA1PEoZiDBHHrz8lAM5iog==; 24:3/i3UwU3K20EQiQLrzY8K7VBQ/CLJPWB2G4DabQ7v1pi4ZZVmqQwfZuNhyGa2sQdXy+j2WAn00nJKTSqSFbY3Ec9YnSiEMqqYLNamO9jXY0=; 7:MXuGAGRmL4owiouj9+DK/4J/e+ecacQ+enn6okFHNcIdyox/IT9EvfNJH8LvJoL35T9BBZNEpfMIJrQs2B0exdJl4qqSlY7M7Ph2WPBx0V5TaApjx7o/W+hvnqwuZoAcWjLEFzPu16iVzxuWLhKj2YMR2eVI8DLvvLFq8pu/3dbHLyYbb2vbvqhOz+Y1UCo6BPw+g8I7EQmeCIiW+0/cA9ysGOU03B8sxkeoqq5A7/EYqpzILu/SJovd6wsaEy/s x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY4PR05MB2936; x-ld-processed: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4,ExtAddr x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(131327999870524)(18271650672692); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026); SRVR:CY4PR05MB2936; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY4PR05MB2936; x-forefront-prvs: 0997523C40 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(13464003)(377454003)(199003)(189002)(3846002)(3280700002)(101416001)(68736007)(4326007)(230783001)(77096005)(6116002)(102836003)(122556002)(2950100001)(189998001)(86362001)(3660700001)(2900100001)(87936001)(66066001)(76576001)(586003)(8676002)(15975445007)(99286002)(10400500002)(7846002)(11100500001)(106116001)(97736004)(50986999)(2906002)(5001770100001)(8936002)(81166006)(105586002)(81156014)(106356001)(5890100001)(54356999)(74316002)(305945005)(76176999)(7696003)(5003600100003)(7736002)(5002640100001)(9686002)(19580395003)(33656002)(19580405001)(92566002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY4PR05MB2936; H:CY4PR05MB2934.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Jul 2016 18:46:17.4707 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR05MB2936 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 18:46:36 -0000 I support the publication, but most of the section 10.2 should be removed, = as discussed in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/i-PHLkWrErDRbX6P= s5Um-j9Oxzo. The issue is not specific to "evpn-overlay", and there is a se= parate new draft discussing it already. Jeffrey > -----Original Message----- > From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > thomas.morin@orange.com > Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:26 AM > To: BESS > Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay >=20 > Hello Working Group, >=20 > (Please read carefully, this e-mail contains new elements compared to WG > LCs we were doing in a still recent past.) >=20 > This email starts a Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay [1]. >=20 > * Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent > version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than > *27th of June*. >=20 > Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document, but > also a call for support (or not) publishing this document as a Proposed > Standard RFC. >=20 > * We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies > to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, to ensure that IPR has been > disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 > and 5378 for more details) prior to moving forward. > If you are listed as a document Author or Contributor of > this document please respond to this email and indicate whether or not > you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The document won't > progress without answers from all the Authors and Contributors. >=20 > * We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of > what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. > Please inform the mailing list, the chairs, or only one of the chairs. >=20 > * Finally, if you want to volunteer to be Document Shepherd for this > document, please let us know. >=20 > Thank you, >=20 > Thomas/Martin >=20 >=20 > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDp= w >=20 > _________________________________________________________________________= _ > _______________________________________________ >=20 > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme o= u > falsifie. Merci. >=20 > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have bee= n > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Fri Jul 8 12:42:08 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietf.org Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE85412D0BD; Fri, 8 Jul 2016 12:41:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.25.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20160708194136.32139.31925.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 12:41:36 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-01.txt X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 19:41:38 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS of the IETF. Title : Updated processing of control flags for BGP VPLS Authors : Ravi Singh Kireeti Kompella Senad Palislamovic Filename : draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-01.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2016-07-08 Abstract: This document updates the meaning of the "control flags" fields inside the "layer2 info extended community" used for BGP-VPLS NLRI. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Sat Jul 9 03:05:14 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC1D12D0F4 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 03:05:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HwuSS-XZDOrx for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2DC91288B8 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id BED4FC6103FC3 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:05:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u69A596r021325 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:05:09 GMT Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u69A59w5012755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:05:09 +0200 Received: from [135.224.210.102] (135.239.27.40) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:05:09 +0200 Message-ID: <5780CC54.20804@nokia.com> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:05:08 +0200 From: Martin Vigoureux User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BESS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [135.239.27.40] Archived-At: Subject: [bess] IETF 96 meeting agenda X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2016 10:05:13 -0000 Hi everyone We've just posted the agenda (still subject to changes) for our meeting in Berlin: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/agenda/agenda-96-bess M&T From nobody Sat Jul 9 03:08:34 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C1512D0F7 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 03:08:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oMOdFBy71E1J for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 03:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D1311288B8 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 03:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 9FB527FBC24D4 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:08:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by fr712umx3.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u69A8SxA019358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:08:28 GMT Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u69A8SfZ024703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:08:28 +0200 Received: from [135.224.210.102] (135.239.27.40) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:08:28 +0200 Message-ID: <5780CD1B.3040907@nokia.com> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:08:27 +0200 From: Martin Vigoureux User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BESS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [135.239.27.40] Archived-At: Subject: [bess] Please send presentation material for BESS in Berlin X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: "bess-chairs@ietf.org" List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2016 10:08:32 -0000 Hello, now that the agenda has been posted, please start sending your presentation material to Thomas and I. Please do so before Sunday the 17th of July, 23h59 local time. Thank you M&T From nobody Sat Jul 9 05:37:53 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC9B127071 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 05:37:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sx6IqAWMWOvW for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 05:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1096B128E18 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 05:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CSH14199; Sat, 09 Jul 2016 12:37:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from SZXEML424-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.153) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 13:37:45 +0100 Received: from szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.95]) by SZXEML424-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.153]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 20:37:36 +0800 From: Guofeng To: BESS Thread-Topic: MVPN YANG draft, welcome your comments Thread-Index: AQHR2d6r8sSRvB2boU2fAXu3J+g6jw== Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 12:37:35 +0000 Message-ID: <26C188D59156FB48A93A72ACF12DE0A56B13DAFE@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.63.94] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_26C188D59156FB48A93A72ACF12DE0A56B13DAFEszxeml556mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090201.5780F01A.004D, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.4.95, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: abe3d7f676ba8747ef49d62a50a1de4f Archived-At: Cc: Liuyisong , Xufeng Liu , Mahesh Sivakumar , Robert Kebler , "xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com" Subject: [bess] MVPN YANG draft, welcome your comments X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2016 12:37:51 -0000 --_000_26C188D59156FB48A93A72ACF12DE0A56B13DAFEszxeml556mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, We have setup a joint MVPN design team and worked on a MVPN YANG draft, http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-01.txt MVPN relates to areas such as MPLS/BGP VPN, P2MP(LDP/TE/GRE), welcome to re= view and comment on it Thank you, Feng --_000_26C188D59156FB48A93A72ACF12DE0A56B13DAFEszxeml556mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

 

We have setup a joint MVPN desi= gn team and worked on a MVPN YANG draft,

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liu-bess-m= vpn-yang-01.txt

 

MVPN relates to areas such as M= PLS/BGP VPN, P2MP(LDP/TE/GRE), welcome to review and comment on it

 

Thank you,

Feng

--_000_26C188D59156FB48A93A72ACF12DE0A56B13DAFEszxeml556mbschi_-- From nobody Sat Jul 9 07:51:23 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26C312D093 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 07:51:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T6jNOf_9DAuy for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 07:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D43912B03B for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 07:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id E03929B64F6F3 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 14:51:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u69EpHdj019827 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 14:51:17 GMT Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u69EpH5m015446 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:51:17 +0200 Received: from [135.224.210.102] (135.239.27.41) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:51:16 +0200 Message-ID: <57810F64.5060904@nokia.com> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:51:16 +0200 From: Martin Vigoureux User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <26C188D59156FB48A93A72ACF12DE0A56B13DAFE@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <26C188D59156FB48A93A72ACF12DE0A56B13DAFE@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [135.239.27.41] Archived-At: Subject: Re: [bess] MVPN YANG draft, welcome your comments X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2016 14:51:22 -0000 WG, just to clarify, this is not a DT as commonly understood but a group of authors. Le 09/07/2016 14:37, Guofeng a écrit : > Hi, > > We have setup a joint MVPN design team and worked on a MVPN YANG draft, > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-01.txt > > MVPN relates to areas such as MPLS/BGP VPN, P2MP(LDP/TE/GRE), welcome to > review and comment on it > > Thank you, > > Feng > > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > From nobody Mon Jul 11 07:39:00 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2769C12D1D8 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:38:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Bx98tt1_EQN for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A195212B043 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049462.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.11/8.16.0.11) with SMTP id u6BCnCXP047394; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:52:38 -0400 Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 244ak09kqk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:52:38 -0400 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6BCqbmc031462; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:52:38 -0400 Received: from mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.239]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6BCqRSn031240 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:52:29 -0400 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAC.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.147]) by mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:52:13 GMT Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRCD.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.4.193]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.147]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:52:12 -0400 From: "UTTARO, JAMES" To: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" , "bess@ietf.org" , "thomas.morin@orange.com" Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay Thread-Index: AQHRxW67gwDozl/9+USz5/SLediWRaAHos+AgAYreICABYzEcA== Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 12:52:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: <21327_1465820739_575EA643_21327_4044_5_0939dd8f-9715-7994-124b-f945085c7312@orange.com> <2201F084-63EE-466A-B709-01EADC68384B@nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <2201F084-63EE-466A-B709-01EADC68384B@nokia.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.91.76.120] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-07-11_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1604210000 definitions=main-1607110129 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:38:59 -0000 Support as a standard, not aware of any IPR related to this draft.. Thanks, Jim Uttaro -----Original Message----- From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim (Nok= ia - BE) Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 4:06 PM To: bess@ietf.org; thomas.morin@orange.com Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call (including implem status & shepherd) for d= raft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay Support as standard. Not aware of IPR related to this draft We have implemented this in multiple products in Nokia: 7x50 product family= and Nuage. > >On 6/13/16, 5:25 AM, "BESS on behalf of thomas.morin@orange.com" > wrote: > >>Hello Working Group, >> >>(Please read carefully, this e-mail contains new elements compared to WG >>LCs we were doing in a still recent past.) >> >>This email starts a Working Group Last Call on >>draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay [1]. >> >>* Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent >>version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than >>*27th of June*. >> >>Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document, but >>also a call for support (or not) publishing this document as a Proposed >>Standard RFC. >> >>* We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies >>to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04, to ensure that IPR has been >>disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 >>and 5378 for more details) prior to moving forward. >>If you are listed as a document Author or Contributor of >>this document please respond to this email and indicate whether or not >>you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The document won't >>progress without answers from all the Authors and Contributors. >> >>* We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of >>what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. >>Please inform the mailing list, the chairs, or only one of the chairs. >> >>* Finally, if you want to volunteer to be Document Shepherd for this >>document, please let us know. >> >>Thank you, >> >>Thomas/Martin >> >> >>[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay >>[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDp= w >> >>_________________________________________________________________________= _ >>_______________________________________________ >> >>Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >>confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >>pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez >>recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >>a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >>electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >>Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme >>ou falsifie. Merci. >> >>This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >>information that may be protected by law; >>they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >>If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >>delete this message and its attachments. >>As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have >>been modified, changed or falsified. >>Thank you. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>BESS mailing list >>BESS@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Thu Jul 14 02:00:24 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9807D12DBF4 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 02:00:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.285 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.285 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=sudhinjacob@rediffmail.com header.sender=sudhinjacob@rediffmail.com header.d=rediffmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Seucg5VMJk6P for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 02:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rediffmail.com (f4mail-235-139.rediffmail.com [202.137.235.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5590912DBDF for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 02:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 30619 invoked by uid 510); 14 Jul 2016 09:00:06 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=redf; d=rediffmail.com; b=UUN0J4aWUGTrEvWlRci5ySllYAV6BUjjFUzKUTF5xlOrEPpyo2m+3LHuk9xoRCNEmtxSCj/VroEdo2p1itojuY6//P4X3U+tn0KAty+4ufduA6uy94NQxk8G1GoynkBx5Cr7KN+WX+ZrjQau7eEqTC4uT/IKnJ/gJ2dJhDXvtxM= ; x-m-msg: asd54ad564ad7aa6sd5as6d5; a6da7d6asas6dasd77; 5dad65ad5sd; X-OUT-VDRT-SpamState: 0\LEGIT X-OUT-VDRT-SpamScore: 0 X-OUT-VDRT-SpamCause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeeltddrgedvgddtlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucdftffgfffkhffhpdfqfgfvfdenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffkfggvfhsuffhtgesrgdtvdertddtjeenucfhrhhomhepfdhsuhguvggvphcughcughhgghdfuceoshhuughhihhnjhgrtghosgesrhgvughifhhfmhgrihhlrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepudduiedrudeljedrudekgedrudegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhht X-Remote-IP: 116.197.184.14 X-REDF-OSEN: sudhinjacob@rediffmail.com Date: 14 Jul 2016 09:00:06 -0000 Message-ID: <20160714090006.30602.qmail@f4mail-235-139.rediffmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Received: from unknown 116.197.184.14 by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 14 Jul 2016 09:00:06 -0000 X-Senderscore: D=0&S=0 Sender: sudhinjacob@rediffmail.com From: "sudeep g ggg" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_df1a6ce9553c1bbeff6aa21d284b431a" Archived-At: Subject: [bess] =?utf-8?q?REG=3A_draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-06?= X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:00:22 -0000 --=_df1a6ce9553c1bbeff6aa21d284b431a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Respected Authors, Appreciate your efforts and hard work put in this draft. I have one small query on this draft. In a service provider network the probability of upgrading all the routers at the same time are very low. In that case a router is not capable of understanding this new community, it will be dropping the advertisement correct me if I am wrong. section 3.1 In other words, in case of discrepancy, the multi-homing for that pair of PEs is assumed to be in default "root" mode for that or . The leaf indication flag on Ethernet A-D per EVI route tells the receiving PEs that all MAC addresses associated with this or are from a leaf site. Therefore, if a PE receives a leaf indication for an AC via the Ethernet A-D per EVI route but doesn’t receive a leaf indication in the corresponding MAC route, then it notify the operator and ignore the leaf indication on the Ethernet A-D per EVI route. section 3.2.1 This Leaf label is advertised to other PE devices, using a new EVPN Extended Community called E-TREE Extended Community (section 5.1) along with an Ethernet A-D per ES route with ESI of zero and a set of Route Targets (RTs) corresponding to all EVIs on the PE with at least one leaf site per EVI. Correct me if I am wrong,apologies for redundant question section 3.1 says the leaf label is advertised on type 1 AD per EVI and section 3.2.1 says type 1 AD per ES. which one will be used. Now in a scenario where PE does not understand the new community acting as a root, if the type 1 route is coming from leaf node in a ES. Then if the remote PE drops the type 1 advertisement because it is not able to follow the the new community. How to take care of this kind of issue. Regards, Sudhin --=_df1a6ce9553c1bbeff6aa21d284b431a Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Respected Authors,

Appreciate your efforts and hard work put in this draft. I have one small q= uery on this draft. In a service provider network the probability of upgrad= ing all the routers at the same time are very low. In that case a router is= not capable of understanding this new community, it will be dropping the a= dvertisement correct me if I am wrong.

section 3.1

In other
words, in case of discrepancy, the multi-homing for that pair of PEs
is assumed to be in default "root" mode for that or EVI/VLAN>. The leaf indication flag on Ethernet A-D per EVI route
tells the receiving PEs that all MAC addresses associated with this
or are from a leaf site. Therefore, if a
PE receives a leaf indication for an AC via the Ethernet A-D per EVI
route but doesn=E2=80=99t receive a leaf indication in the corresponding MA= C
route, then it notify the operator and ignore the leaf indication on
the Ethernet A-D per EVI route.

section 3.2.1

This Leaf label is advertised to other PE devices, using a
new EVPN Extended Community called E-TREE Extended Community (section
5.1) along with an Ethernet A-D per ES route with ESI of zero and a
set of Route Targets (RTs) corresponding to all EVIs on the PE with
at least one leaf site per EVI.


Correct me if I am wrong,apologies for redundant question section 3.1 says = the leaf label is advertised on type 1 AD per EVI and section 3.2.1 says ty= pe 1 AD per ES.

which one will be used.


Now in a scenario where PE does not understand the new community acting as = a root, if the type 1 route is coming from leaf node in a ES. Then if the r= emote PE drops the type 1 advertisement because it is not able to follow th= e the new community. How to take care of this kind of issue.

Regards,
Sudhin


--=_df1a6ce9553c1bbeff6aa21d284b431a-- From nobody Fri Jul 15 09:05:42 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E286812D61F for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:05:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZpJA37PrE0gr for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:05:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5735E12D09F for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:05:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id f93so91541291lfi.2 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:05:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6cUA85scwJbVJmHD94JOo+3j3/1kmg4voV5GavTovWk=; b=qZguYFsqQ5dLrPHnxBU/BpBr5BfVFgUS+Xk6sI2uPUCOZOmSubZNxWoLH52Tz5QP2h D/nOCKk2yPC8wb9KXpzr4zDFv8ALkoV3V5nWG7p5ANqRIYwNcUhcjPfZJh3iSSiThMYs QVt+ExKK4yxMGvVTww/bVKaZUvN+pA2dC3Vcr3CUlN8LWWGmBJePiHRmoLZlVujUqkSZ P0CR1aK6FWfxPELozXABKF1DTlOTbSV7GZqj/uhVHZKEIFn8dh/3ap7K7jhUSaVo9A36 s5UvVboTkSt4FfvFKlHSBt9epe5Ca5LfJ/lFNaBs41uAq8pbYl3Uc/N9vXCiJoTUWF+d djtQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6cUA85scwJbVJmHD94JOo+3j3/1kmg4voV5GavTovWk=; b=knFLi0xi8cA7C0dpmKA/kWAqywPIAi9QREE05rx4mNd6GQMju5ldWQbs/f/Dfpxe/w Lv4ihkKcPqEvG7tATppfsyIZAFfF9lvd5g9JX7kOcEhoyniv19rBvgO+nZsVT/5w9WwT axrpNTqjnpkmgGT5UEiOeIofd5QJQ2EjG23jLvoSrypOOn+xZEx1GBNgehsl+Kifl+ai jFJcRni1XwdwbcxYdwkhybEAbITe2hE/yqZzMee/nwpNCtC+YeRPd4ll2LjeLba5TnXG 9J7+lk3IJonOAz746uQ/+1kjJSk4hxVh9KM6hKFu4AtSD6noe8ugHEF9o3YQXsYGd8Xb JxCA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKhRrJEK2fBXBAz5ytDAAYBZqw3GBEm3VFh3wjmH9HyJiY7NM/bhdZwMBEDRWyMxXHst28cVEPfSV5guA== X-Received: by 10.25.30.146 with SMTP id e140mr9605575lfe.71.1468598737075; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:05:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.174.75 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:05:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Eduard Metz Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 18:05:36 +0200 Message-ID: To: bess@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114777600a84140537aeca57 Archived-At: Subject: [bess] Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS VPNs X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:05:41 -0000 --001a114777600a84140537aeca57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hello all, RFC7024 describes "Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS VPNs" The RFC describes a model where the virtual spokes rely on a default route, and the virtual hubs use more specific routing information to forward traffic correctly. Would it be possible to implement a virtual hub-and-spoke VPN where the virtual spokes use more specific routing information to forward traffic, in particular to forward traffic via the optimal correct hub? The case would be for instance: - A set of access v-spoke PEs - Multiple sets of service v-hub PEs - Multiple sets of service v-spoke PEs The access v-spoke PEs have a relation with all service v-hub PEs The service v-spoke PEs are divided over the different sets of service v-hub PEs In other words, specific services / IP destinations are reachable via specific h-hub PEs. The idea is the have more specific routing in (at least) the acces v-spoke PEs to allow them to select the correct servcie v-hub PE. Thanks! /Eduard --001a114777600a84140537aeca57 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello all,

RFC7024 describes "Virt= ual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS VPNs"
The RFC describes a mode= l where the virtual spokes rely on a default route, and the virtual hubs us= e more specific routing information to forward traffic correctly.

Would it be possible to implement a virtual hub-and-spoke V= PN where the virtual spokes use more specific routing information to forwar= d traffic, in particular to forward traffic via the optimal correct hub?

The case would be for instance:
- A set of= access v-spoke PEs
- Multiple sets of service v-hub PEs
- Multiple sets of service v-spoke PEs

The acces= s v-spoke PEs have a relation with all service v-hub PEs
The serv= ice v-spoke PEs are divided over the different sets of service v-hub PEs

In other words, specific services / IP destinations = are reachable via specific h-hub PEs.

The idea is = the have more specific routing in (at least) the acces v-spoke PEs to allow= them to select the correct servcie v-hub PE.

Than= ks!

/Eduard

--001a114777600a84140537aeca57-- From nobody Sun Jul 17 03:54:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2081912D0B1 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 03:53:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BiUfgTarEjQo for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 03:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F57912B075 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 03:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id D1E4D59D44458 for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 10:53:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u6HArsDX022462 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 10:53:54 GMT Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u6HArqkF006598 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 12:53:54 +0200 Received: from [135.224.205.146] (135.239.27.40) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 12:53:52 +0200 Message-ID: <578B63BF.8060304@nokia.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 12:53:51 +0200 From: Martin Vigoureux User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BESS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [135.239.27.40] Archived-At: Subject: [bess] still no slides for bess Berlin X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 10:53:59 -0000 Speakers, deadline is in less than 12 hrs and we still have not received a single set of slides ... The agenda is pretty full, don't take the risk of seeing your slot moved at the end of the agenda. M&T From nobody Sun Jul 17 07:45:26 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF0412B01D; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 07:45:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JYfES_M1bQ56; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 07:45:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from niseko.cysol.co.jp (niseko.cysol.co.jp [210.233.3.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6D7B12B007; Sun, 17 Jul 2016 07:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.91] (cysvpn04.priv.cysol.co.jp [192.168.0.91]) (authenticated bits=0) by aso.priv.cysol.co.jp (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u6HEivBj068793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 17 Jul 2016 23:44:58 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from glenn@cysols.com) To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" , Benoit Claise , "EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com" References: <56E7D219.7000902@orange.com> <56FBD402.9040102@cisco.com> <56FBDD81.6080502@cysols.com> <11152_1459347064_56FBDE78_11152_10229_1_56FBDE77.6030605@orange.com> <56FBE17E.5090609@cisco.com> <570C9586.7030905@cysols.com> From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 23:44:52 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: "mib-doctors@ietf.org" , "ops-ads@ietf.org" , Mach Chen , Martin Vigoureux , "bess@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 14:45:21 -0000 Jeffrey and team, Any progress on the MIB matters (draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-05.txt, draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-03.txt )? Glenn On 2016/06/07 18:39, Glenn Mansfield Keeni wrote: > Hi Jeffrey, > Thanks for the good work on draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib > document. It took me some time to do this review. But now here it > is. A (near complete) review of > draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt is attached. Hope this helps. > I understand that the Security Considerations section is TBD. > > Glenn > > On 2016/05/19 4:48, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: >> Hi Glenn, >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Glenn Mansfield Keeni [mailto:glenn@cysols.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 11:02 AM >>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; Benoit Claise >>> ; EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com >>> >>> Cc: Mach Chen ; ops-ads@ietf.org; Martin Vigoureux >>> ; bess@ietf.org; mib-doctors@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib- >>> 02.txt >>> >>> Jeffrey, >>> > Thanks for your comments. I've addressed most of your comments >>> > in the new revision: >>> Thanks for your cooperation. I will need at least one more revision >>> with the following comments/recommendations addressed before I will >>> be able to complete the detailed review. In the following the numbers >>> refer to the issue numbers in the initial review. The issues that are >>> addressed and closed are not listed. For brevity, the issue >>> descriptions have been trimmed. In case of doubts please look at the >>> response mail appended below. >>> Hope this helps. >> >> Thanks for your detailed comments/suggestions. I posted a new revision >> with the following issues addressed. >> >> URL: >> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04.txt >> >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib/ >> Htmlized: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04 >> Diff: >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-04 >> >> Please see some notes below. >> >>> >>> Glenn >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Comments: >>> >>> 1.1 >>> > I had thought this would be standard/obvious for all MIB objects - >>> We will comeback to this time and again, whereever possible make >>> matters explicit and clear. That will help. >>> > Is it enough to say something similar? For example: >>> > In particular, it describes common managed objects used >>> > to configure and/or monitor both L2 and L3 VPN Multicast. >>> That is better. >> >> I take it that this is already closed in -03 revision. >> >>> >>> 2.2 >>> > Having said that, I'll explain PMSI a bit further. >>> PMSI explanation is good. >>> Please use the same style/format for I-PMSI and S-PMSI. >> >> I think -03 revision already use the same style/format for I-PMSI and >> S-PMSI? >> >>> >>> 2.3 >>> > No difference. I was using "Layer 3" or "L3" but it was pointed out >>> > that the layer 3 VPN is often referred to IP VPN in other RFCs and I >>> > was advised to change it accordingly. Looks like I did not change all >>> > the cases. >>> > On the other hand, I noticed that RFC 4382 does use "Layer 3 VPN" so >>> > I'll change it back. >>> No problems. just make sure that the same expression/notation is used >>> uniformly. >> >> I take it that this is also addressed in -03 already. >> >>> 3. >>> > > > 3. Summary of MIB Module. >>> > > > An overview of the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB will be good- the >>> > > > structure of the MIB, short descriptions of the table(s) >>> > > > including usage of the table(s) for management and/or by >>> > > > other MIB(s). >>> > >>> > I had that, but have added one sentence about the only table. >>> A sentence or two about the textual convention will be good. >> >> Added in -04. >> >>> > > > 4. MIB syntax checking: >>> > > > smilint -s -e -l 5 mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB >>> 2>L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB.txt >>> > >>> > I used simpleweb's validation tool but looks like I did not use the >>> > strictest level of validation. I've now fixed the following issues >>> and >>> > verified. >>> Good. >>> 5. >>> > > > >>> > > > 5. REFERENCE clauses: Please use REFERENCE clauses liberally. >>> > > > Wherever possible, provide references for objects used in >>> > > > the MIB. The references will point to specific sections/ >>> > > > sub-sections of the RFCs defining the protocol for which the >>> > > > MIB is being designed. It will greatly improve the >>> readability >>> > > > of the document. >>> > >>> > Added. >>> I would recommend using the REFERENCE clause as in rfs4382 and >>> improve on it. >>> Specifically, instead of keeping the reference in the DESCRIPTION >>> clause move it to a separate REFERENCE clause. The addition of the >>> section number is an improvement. It is friendlier to the reader. >>> Note. Same comment for other OBJECTs too. >> >> Oh I missed that. All fixed. >> >>> 7.1 >>> > > > 7.1 CONTACT-INFO >>> > > > Following the conventions (including indentation style) will >>> > > > improve the readability. (e.g. RFC4382, RFC5132). >>> > > > Will be good if it does not overflow into the next page. >>> > >>> > Fixed. >>> The format is OK. The Postal address etc., need not have been >>> deleted. Please put the complete contact information as in the >>> Author's Address. (RFC 2578 section 5.7 gives a usage example). >> >> Fixed. >> >>> 7.3 >>> > I kept "experimental 99" so that I could continue to use mib tools >>> > to validate; but I added notes for the editor to replace them as you >>> > indicated. >>> Use of "experimental 99" is not recommended. >> >> Do you mean 99 is not a good number? What about 9999? As I explained, >> I kept it so that we can use mib tools to validate, and I've added >> detailed notes for the editor. >> >>> 8 >>> > > > 8. Specific MO and TC related comments. >>> > Are spaces allowed? I don't know so I used hyphen. For now I replace >>> > with things like rsvpP2mp. >>> Yes. Camelcase is an allowed practice. SMI does not mind it. >> >> Ok this is closed already then. >> >>> 8.2 >>> > > > 8.2 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags OBJECT-TYPE >>> > The intent is to simply return the octet value of the flags >>> > field, w/o listing individual bits like "Leaf Information Required". >>> > More bits could be defined in the future but the MIB would not >>> change. >>> > >>> > Is that OK? >>> As far as possible, the meaning of the objects must be made clear. >>> That will help implementors and operators- users of the MIB. >> >> I added the definition for one existing bit and reference to the IANA >> registry being created for this flag field. >> >>> >>> 8.3 >>> > > > 8.3 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId OBJECT-TYPE >>> > Depending on the tunnel type, there could be different sizes. >>> > Future tunnel types could have other sizes that not specified >>> > today. I was thinking to just give a size >>> > tPmsiTunnelAttributeId OBJECT-TYPE range so that it is flexible. >>> > Is that ok? >>> I see that you have changed the size upper limit to 50. >>> If the size varies continuously from 0 to 50 the above description >>> is correct. >>> Please confirm, explain and cite appropriate reference. If the size >>> may change in the future that must be stated too. >> >> I changed to discrete sizes for currently defined tunnel types. >> >>> >>> 8.4 >>> > > > 8.4 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelIf OBJECT-TYPE >>> > > > SYNTAX RowPointer >>> > > > MAX-ACCESS read-only >>> > > > STATUS current >>> > > > DESCRIPTION >>> > > > "If the tunnel has a corresponding interface, >>> > > > this is the row pointer to the ifName table." >>> > > > o DESCRIPTION looks incorrect. Please fix it. Do you >>> > > > want to say this object points to the corresponding >>> > > > row in the ifTable? >>> > >>> > Yes. Fixed. >>> Not quite. >>> What is ifName table ? ifName is a columnar object in the ifXTable. >>> Is l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelIf a pointer to the corresponding row in >>> the >>> ifXTable table ? Please fix accordingly. >> >> You're right. Fixed. >> >>> >>> 9. >>> > > > 9. The Security Considerations section does not follow >>> > > > the Security Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules >>> > > > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security. >>> > > > Please fix. >>> > >>> > I was really hoping that it would not have to be that >>> > tedious. SNMP/MIB secur >>> ity should be no different from the >>> > CLI security - once you secure the infrastructure >>> > then what's more to do? >>> > >>> > I'll need more time to work on this. Let me try to address >>> > the issues in the other mib first and come back to this. >>> >>> Please take your time. Looking at examples will help. And let me >>> know where I can help. >> >> I will need to work on that later. >> >>> >>> 10.1 >>> > > > 10.1 Checking nits according to >>> > > > http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : >>> > Should I break them into different lines or just keep them >>> > as is? Any example of expected indentation if I break the >>> > lines? >>> No problems at all to break lines. >>> l2L3VpnMcastGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER >>> ::= {l2L3VpnMcastConformance 1} >>> Should do. >> >> Done. >> >>> >>> 10.2 >>> > > > 10.2 Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard >>> > > > == Missing Reference: 'RFC 7117' is mentioned on line 76, >>> > > > but not defined >>> > > > 'described in [RFC6513, RFC6514, RFC 7117] and other >>> > I hope I understood and fixed it (removing the space in "RFC 7117"). >>> I would recommend that you put it as [RFC6513], [RFC6514], [RFC7117] >>> That is simpler to parse. >> >> I see some other documents do not have comma between multiple >> references so I followed that. >> >>> >>> > > > 11. There is another WIP MVPN-MIB in >>> > > > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt >>> > > > MVPN-MIB has objects that refer to L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB. >>> > > > Is there a good reason for not merging the 2 documents? >>> > > > I have not seen any discussion or explanation on this. >>> > > > I may have missed it. >>> > > > Please clarify or, give some pointers. >>> > >>> > As mentioned in the introduction: >>> > >>> > this memo describes managed objects common to both VPLS >>> > Multicast [RFC7117] and MVPN [RFC6513, RFC6514]. >>> > MVPN-MIB is for MVPN. There was another VPLS Multicast MIB >>> > in the work and both would reference common >>> >>> > objects defined in this MIB. >>> >>> OK. So you are saying that this MIB contains core objects that >>> will be used to manage implementations of various multicast VPN >>> protocols e.g. [RFC7117], [RFC6513],[RFC6514] ? It will help if >>> you spell it out at the beginning. >> >> Yes. I thought I did it already: >> >> 1. Introduction >> >> ... and this memo describes managed objects common to both VPLS >> Multicast [RFC7117] and MVPN [RFC6513, RFC6514]. >> >> Thanks! >> Jeffrey >> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> On 2016/04/16 21:47, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: >>>> Glenn, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your comments. I've addressed most of your comments in the >>> new revision: >>>> >>>> URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bess- >>> l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-03.txt >>>> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3- >>> vpn-mcast-mib/ >>>> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn- >>> mcast-mib-03 >>>> Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-l2l3- >>> vpn-mcast-mib-03 >>>> >>>> Please see below. >>>> >>>>> 1. Abstract: >>>>> 1.1 A sentence on how the managed objects will be used by >>>>> applications for operations, monitoring and management >>>>> would be good. >>>> >>>> I had thought this would be standard/obvious for all MIB objects - the >>> read-write ones are used to control how a device works, and the >>> read-only >>> ones are used for monitoring. Do I really need to say it explicitly? >>>> >>>> I see RFC 4382 has the following: >>>> >>>> This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) >>>> for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. >>>> In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or >>>> monitor Multiprotocol Label Switching Layer-3 Virtual Private >>>> Networks on a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching >>>> Router (LSR) supporting this feature. >>>> >>>> Is it enough to say something similar? For example: >>>> >>>> In particular, it describes common managed objects used to >>> configure >>>> and/or monitor both L2 and L3 VPN Multicast. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. Introduction >>>>> 2.1 Please give the full expansion of the abbreviations >>>>> appearing for the first time. (PE, VPLS,..) >>>> >>>> Fixed. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2.2 The terminology section is a bit terse. Explaining the >>>>> terms that are used, nicely with reference to the protocol >>>>> documents will improve readability. >>>>> e.g. >>>>> - PMSI, I-PMSI, S-PMSI, provider tunnels >>>> >>>> As the paragraph alluded to, this MIB needs to be understood in the >>> general context of L2/L3 multicast VPN and providing good explanation of >>> the terms is not attempted. The references for the terms are the the >>> RFCs >>> for the relevant technologies. >>>> >>>> Having said that, I'll explain PMSI a bit further. >>>> >>>>> 2.3 Is there a difference between >>>>> "multicast in Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPNs , defined by >>>>> RFC 7117 and RFC 6513/6514" >>>>> used in the DESCRIPTION in the MODULE-IDENTITY >>>>> and >>>>> "multicast in BGP/MPLS L2 or IP VPN" >>>>> used in the DESCRIPTION of L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType ? >>>>> If these are the same, it will be helpful to stick to the >>>>> same expression. If these are not the same, the dictinction >>>>> should be clarified. >>>> >>>> No difference. I was using "Layer 3" or "L3" but it was pointed out >>>> that >>> the layer 3 VPN is often referred to IP VPN in other RFCs and I was >>> advised to change it accordingly. Looks like I did not change all the >>> cases. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, I noticed that RFC 4382 does use "Layer 3 VPN" so >>> I'll change it back. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3. Summary of MIB Module. >>>>> An overview of the L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB will be good- the >>>>> structure of the MIB, short descriptions of the table(s) >>>>> including usage of the table(s) for management and/or by >>>>> other MIB(s). >>>> >>>> I had that, but have added one sentence about the only table. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> MIB definitions: >>>>> 4. MIB syntax checking: >>>>> smilint -s -e -l 5 mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB 2>L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB.txt >>>> >>>> I used simpleweb's validation tool but looks like I did not use the >>> strictest level of validation. I've now fixed the following issues and >>> verified. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:63: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>> number `rsvp-p2mp' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:64: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>> number `ldp-p2mp' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:65: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>> number `pim-asm' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:66: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>> number `pim-ssm' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:67: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>> number `pim-bidir' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:68: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>> number `ingress-replication' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:69: [4] {hyphen-in-label} warning: named >>> number `ldp-mp2mp' must not include a hyphen in SMIv2 >>>> >>>> See later question/comments below. >>>> >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:215: [5] {group-unref} warning: current >>> group `l2L3VpnMcastOptionalGroup' is not referenced in this module >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:4: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier >>> `NOTIFICATION-TYPE' imported from module `SNMPv2-SMI' is never used >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:5: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier >>> `Unsigned32' imported from module `SNMPv2-SMI' is never used >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:8: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier >>> `NOTIFICATION-GROUP' imported from module `SNMPv2-CONF' is never used >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:11: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier >>> `TruthValue' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:11: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier >>> `RowStatus' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:12: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier >>> `TimeStamp' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:12: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier >>> `TimeInterval' imported from module `SNMPv2-TC' is never used >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:15: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier >>> `SnmpAdminString' imported from module `SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB' is never >>> used >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:18: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier >>> `InetAddress' imported from module `INET-ADDRESS-MIB' is never used >>>>> mibs/L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB:18: [5] {import-unused} warning: identifier >>> `InetAddressType' imported from module `INET-ADDRESS-MIB' is never used >>>> >>>> Removed the above unused imports. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 5. REFERENCE clauses: Please use REFERENCE clauses liberally. >>>>> Wherever possible, provide references for objects used in >>>>> the MIB. The references will point to specific sections/ >>>>> sub-sections of the RFCs defining the protocol for which the >>>>> MIB is being designed. It will greatly improve the readability >>>>> of the document. >>>> >>>> Added. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 6. IMPORTS clause >>>>> MIB modules from which items are imported must be cited and >>>>> included in the normative references. >>>>> The conventional style is >>>>> mplsStdMIB >>>>> FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- [RFC3811] >>>> >>>> Added. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 7. Please update the MODULE-IDENTITY. (There are no syntantic errors.) >>>>> 7.1 CONTACT-INFO >>>>> Following the conventions (including indentation style) will >>>>> improve the readability. (e.g. RFC4382, RFC5132). >>>>> Will be good if it does not overflow into the next page. >>>> >>>> Fixed. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 7.2 REVISION clause: follow the convention recommended in RFC4181 >>>>> sec 4.5 >>>>> REVISION "200212132358Z" -- December 13, 2002 >>>>> DESCRIPTION "Initial version, published as RFC yyyy." >>>>> -- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note: >>>> >>>> Fixed. >>>> >>>>> 7.3 OID assignment: follow the convention recommended in RFC4181 >>>>> sec 4.5 i >>>>> replace >>>>> ::= { experimental 99 } -- number to be assigned >>>>> by >>>>> ::= { XXX } >>>>> -- RFC Ed.: replace XXX with IANA-assigned number & remove this >>>>> note >>>>> will be the subtree under which the module will be >>>>> registered. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I kept "experimental 99" so that I could continue to use mib tools to >>> validate; but I added notes for the editor to replace them as you >>> indicated. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 8. Specific MO and TC related comments. >>>>> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION >>>>> STATUS current >>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>> "Types of provider tunnels used for multicast in >>>>> BGP/MPLS L2 or IP VPN." >>>>> SYNTAX INTEGER { unconfigured (0), >>>>> rsvp-p2mp (1), >>>>> ldp-p2mp (2), >>>>> pim-asm (3), >>>>> pim-ssm (4), >>>>> pim-bidir (5), >>>>> ingress-replication (6), >>>>> ldp-mp2mp (7) >>>>> >>>>> o Would be nice to align the enumeration labels with the >>>>> labels in the protocol document RFC 6514 unless there is >>>>> a good reason for not doing so. (You will have to take >>>>> care of the smi compilation errors too; '-' is not allowed ). >>>> >>>> Are spaces allowed? I don't know so I used hyphen. For now I replace >>> with things like rsvpP2mp. >>>> Or could/should I just remove the definitions, so that if a new type is >>> defined in the future there is no need to update the MIB? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 8.1 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry OBJECT-TYPE >>>>> SYNTAX L2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry >>>>> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible >>>>> STATUS current >>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>> "An entry in this table corresponds to an PMSI attribute >>>>> that is advertised/received on this router. >>>>> For BGP-based signaling (for I-PMSI via auto-discovery >>>>> procedure, or for S-PMSI via S-PMSI A-D routes), >>>>> they are just as signaled by BGP (RFC 6514 section 5, >>>>> 'PMSI Tunnel attribute'). >>>>> For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, >>>>> they're derived from S-PMSI Join Message >>>>> (RFC 6513 section 7.4.2, 'UDP-based Protocol').. >>>>> >>>>> Note that BGP-based signaling may be used for >>>>> PIM-MVPN as well." >>>>> o Fix the ".." in "'UDP-based Protocol').." above. >>>>> o Please give the reference for this Table. >>>>> Is it- "PMSI Tunnel attribute" in RFC 6513 Sec.4 ? >>>>> "PMSI Tunnel attribute" in RFC 6514 Sec.5 ? >>>>> both? >>>>> Any other pointers? >>>> >>>> Fixed. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 8.2 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeFlags OBJECT-TYPE >>>>> SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (1)) >>>>> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible >>>>> STATUS current >>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>> "For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, this is 0. >>>>> For BGP-based I/S-PMSI signaling, this is the Flags >>>>> field in PMSI Tunnel Attribute of the corresponding >>>>> I/S-PMSI A-D route." >>>>> ::= { l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeEntry 1 } >>>>> o Please confirm that the above is a complete enumeration of the >>>>> types of signalling. >>>>> o RFC 6514 Sec.5 says that the Flags field indicates >>>>> "Leaf Information Required". That is useful information. >>>>> Please include in the description. >>>> >>>> The intent is to simply return the octet value of the flags field, w/o >>> listing individual bits like "Leaf Information Required". More bits >>> could >>> be defined in the future but the MIB would not change. >>>> >>>> Is that OK? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 8.3 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeId OBJECT-TYPE >>>>> SYNTAX OCTET STRING ( SIZE (0..37) ) >>>>> MAX-ACCESS not-accessible >>>>> STATUS current >>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>> "For UDP-based S-PMSI signaling for PIM-MVPN, the first >>>>> four or sixteen octets of this attribute are filled with >>>>> the provider tunnel group address (IPv4 or IPv6).. >>>>> For BGP-based I/S-PMSI signaling, this is the Tunnel >>> Identifier >>>>> Field in PMSI Tunnel Attribute of the corresponding I/S- >>> PMSI >>>>> A-D route." >>>>> o Check the size specifications. The specs above say it can be >>>>> all sizes 0..37. That is not clear from the DESCRIPTION clause. >>>>> o Fix the ".." in "(IPv4 or IPv6).." above. >>>>> o RFC 6514 Sec 5. PMSI Tunnel Attribute gives the Tunnel >>> Identifiers >>>>> for mLDP, PIM-SM, PIM-SSM, BIDIR-PIM,Ingress Replication,MP2MP. >>>>> It appears that the sizes (range) for each case will be >>>>> different. >>>>> Please clarify that, and if there are discrete sizes, specify >>>>> accordingly. >>>> >>>> Depending on the tunnel type, there could be different sizes. Future >>> tunnel types could have other sizes that not specified today. I was >>> thinking to just give a size range so that it is flexible. Is that ok? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 8.3 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelPointer OBJECT-TYPE >>>>> SYNTAX RowPointer >>>>> MAX-ACCESS read-only >>>>> STATUS current >>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>> "If the tunnel exists in some MIB table, this is the >>>>> row pointer to it." >>>>> o "some MIB table" : specify which MIB table. >>>> >>>> I can give an example, like mplsTunnelTable [RFC 3812]. It could be >>> whatever table that a tunnel may be put into. >>>> >>>>> o In what case will the tunnel exist and in what case will it not? >>>> >>>> If a device supports mplsTunnelTable and the tunnel is represented >>>> there, >>> then it exists. >>>> >>>>> o What will be the behaviour if the above condition is not >>> satisfied? >>>> >>>> A null pointer should be given. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 8.4 l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelIf OBJECT-TYPE >>>>> SYNTAX RowPointer >>>>> MAX-ACCESS read-only >>>>> STATUS current >>>>> DESCRIPTION >>>>> "If the tunnel has a corresponding interface, this is the >>>>> row pointer to the ifName table." >>>>> o DESCRIPTION looks incorrect. Please fix it. Do you want to say >>>>> this object points to the corresponding row in the ifTable? >>>> >>>> Yes. Fixed. >>>> >>>>> o In what case does the TunnelIf exist and in what case will it >>> not? >>>> >>>> Some tunnels may not have a corresponding interface. >>>> >>>>> o What will be expected if the tunnel does not have a >>> corresponding >>>>> interface? >>>> >>>> Null row pointer. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 9. The Security Considerations section does not follow the Security >>>>> Guidelines for IETF MIB Modules >>>>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security. >>>>> Please fix. >>>> >>>> I was really hoping that it would not have to be that tedious. SNMP/MIB >>> security should be no different from the CLI security - once you secure >>> the infrastructure then what's more to do? >>>> >>>> I'll need more time to work on this. Let me try to address the >>>> issues in >>> the other mib first and come back to this. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 10.ID-nits >>>>> 10.1 Checking nits according to >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> --------- >>>>> >>>>> ** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the >>> longest one >>>>> being 3 characters in excess of 72. >>>> >>>> I fixed some but there still three too long lines: >>>> >>>> l2L3VpnMcastPmsiTunnelAttributeType >>>> L2L3VpnMcastProviderTunnelType, >>>> >>>> l2L3VpnMcastGroups OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= >>>> {l2L3VpnMcastConformance >>> 1} >>>> l2L3VpnMcastCompliances OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= >>>> {l2L3VpnMcastConformance >>> 2} >>>> >>>> Should I break them into different lines or just keep them as is? Any >>> example of expected indentation if I break the lines? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 10.2 Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> --------- >>>>> >>>>> == Missing Reference: 'RFC 7117' is mentioned on line 76, but not >>>>> defined >>>>> 'described in [RFC6513, RFC6514, RFC 7117] and other documents >>> tha...' >>>> >>>> I hope I understood and fixed it (removing the space in "RFC 7117"). >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 11. There is another WIP MVPN-MIB in draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-02.txt >>>>> MVPN-MIB has objects that refer to L2L3-VPN-MCAST-MIB. >>>>> Is there a good reason for not merging the 2 documents? I have >>>>> not >>> seen >>>>> any discussion or explanation on this. I may have missed it. >>> Please >>>>> clarify or, give some pointers. >>>> >>>> As mentioned in the introduction: >>>> >>>> this memo describes managed objects common to both VPLS >>>> Multicast [RFC7117] and MVPN [RFC6513, RFC6514]. >>>> >>>> MVPN-MIB is for MVPN. There was another VPLS Multicast MIB in the work >>> and both would reference common objects defined in this MIB. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Jeffrey >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Mansfield >>>>> Keeni >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:28 AM >>>>> To: Benoit Claise ; EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com >>>>> >>>>> Cc: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; ops-ads@ietf.org; >>> Martin >>>>> Vigoureux ; bess@ietf.org; Mach Chen >>>>> >>>>> Subject: [bess] MIBDoc review of draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib- >>> 02.txt >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> I have been asked to do a MIB Doctors review of >>>>> draft-ietf-bess-l2l3-vpn-mcast-mib-02.txt. >>>>> My knowledge of L2L3VPN Multicast is limited to the reading >>>>> of this document and browsing through the documents referred >>>>> to in the draft and bess-wg mailing list archives.( read "shallow"). >>>>> So some of the doubts and questions may sound trivial or >>>>> strange. Please bear with me and help me help you make >>>>> this into a better document :-) >>>>> >>>>> The comments are attached. >>>>> >>>>> Glenn >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> BESS mailing list >>>> BESS@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >>>> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > MIB-DOCTORS mailing list > MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors > From nobody Mon Jul 18 15:07:52 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF240127071 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:07:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bUs1ozMv-j-T for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:07:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.orange.com (p-mail2.rd.orange.com [161.106.1.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202BB12DACA for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:07:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 22017E3007C; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:07:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.194.32.11]) by p-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D10E30079; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:07:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [172.31.0.50] (10.193.116.12) by FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (10.194.32.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.301.0; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:07:35 +0200 To: , "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" , "Ali Sajassi" , Anshu Verma References: <578B63BF.8060304@nokia.com> From: Thomas Morin Organization: Orange Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:07:34 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <578B63BF.8060304@nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [bess] still no slides for bess Berlin X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 22:07:51 -0000 Speakers, We are still missing 3 of the slide decks: draft-anshuverma-bess-vpls-best-site-id-02 10min, Anshu draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-cmcast-enhancements-00 20min, Jeffrey draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-00 10min, Ali Please post your slides tomorrow... Best, -Thomas 17/07/2016 à 12:53, Martin Vigoureux: > Speakers, > > deadline is in less than 12 hrs and we still have not received a > single set of slides ... > The agenda is pretty full, don't take the risk of seeing your slot > moved at the end of the agenda. > > M&T > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Mon Jul 18 19:24:40 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B86412D0AA; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:24:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.808 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gv64iaBD_6mU; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:24:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E589A12D0A4; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:24:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2678; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1468895076; x=1470104676; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=QqExr/8hjPJDTSq91Br1CY6gG+iu9PZ0/WjVmkY05t0=; b=SfAxcGZSwbeI7IqRWmz+iCAx2noiY0aESTa1MCdCOKDj5rirw0ZwIoOy 6FcL6sZkpCxgvvziIBVQlOma+F1pNo8wrC6RXCcr9MCMPVKsZYIsBQjsf HHdnn4q8xWRZCPDZ0pcx8mt4lrf5D750I2t19acxBHPoUVBYLxjYaQFYy c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CEAgDdjo1X/4UNJK1bgz9WfAa4YYF6I?= =?us-ascii?q?oV4AhyBGzgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhFwBAQUjEUMCDAQCAQgRBAEBAwIjAwICAjAUAQg?= =?us-ascii?q?IAgQBDQUIiCgOr22ODwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARyBAYUphE2HQYJaB?= =?us-ascii?q?Y4LixkBhhKIRYFyToQLiHOQHQEeNoNzbgGGe38BAQE?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,387,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="130164875" Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 19 Jul 2016 02:24:35 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com (xch-rcd-018.cisco.com [173.37.102.28]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6J2OZqb031496 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 02:24:35 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-020.cisco.com (173.37.102.30) by XCH-RCD-018.cisco.com (173.37.102.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:24:35 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-020.cisco.com ([173.37.102.30]) by XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com ([173.37.102.30]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:24:35 -0500 From: "Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" To: "bess@ietf.org" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHR14OkSoSUTH6fiECcys2OUSg506AfGXbQ Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 02:24:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160706124054.7765.88133.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160706124054.7765.88133.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.24.33.206] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Gregory Mirsky , "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" , "MALLIK MUDIGONDA \(mmudigon\)" Subject: Re: [bess] New Version Notification for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-00.txt X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 02:24:39 -0000 SGVsbG8gYWxsLA0KICBkcmFmdC1nbXNtLWJlc3MtZXZwbi1iZmQtMDAudHh0IHdhcyBwcmVzZW50 ZWQgYnkgR3JlZyBNaXJza3kgYXQgSUVURiA5NiBNUExTIFdHIGFuZCBpcyBzY2hlZHVsZWQgZm9y IHByZXNlbnRhdGlvbiBhdCBCRVNTIGFuZCBCRkQgV0cgbWVldGluZ3MuIEF1dGhvcnMgcmVxdWVz dCBjb21tZW50cy8gc3VnZ2VzdGlvbnMgb24gdGhpcyBkcmFmdC4NClRoYW5rcw0KUHJhc2FkDQoN Ci0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5v cmcgW21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIA0KU2VudDogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBK dWx5IDA2LCAyMDE2IDY6MTEgUE0NClRvOiBNQUxMSUsgTVVESUdPTkRBIChtbXVkaWdvbikgPG1t dWRpZ29uQGNpc2NvLmNvbT47IE1BTExJSyBNVURJR09OREEgKG1tdWRpZ29uKSA8bW11ZGlnb25A Y2lzY28uY29tPjsgR3JlZyBNaXJza3kgPGdyZWdvcnkubWlyc2t5QGVyaWNzc29uLmNvbT47IFZl bmdhZGEgUHJhc2FkIEdvdmluZGFuICh2ZW5nZ292aSkgPHZlbmdnb3ZpQGNpc2NvLmNvbT47IEdy ZWdvcnkgTWlyc2t5IDxncmVnb3J5Lm1pcnNreUBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20+OyBBbGkgU2FqYXNzaSAo c2FqYXNzaSkgPHNhamFzc2lAY2lzY28uY29tPg0KU3ViamVjdDogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZp Y2F0aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC1nbXNtLWJlc3MtZXZwbi1iZmQtMDAudHh0DQoNCg0KQSBuZXcgdmVy c2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LWdtc20tYmVzcy1ldnBuLWJmZC0wMC50eHQgaGFzIGJlZW4gc3Vj Y2Vzc2Z1bGx5IHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBieSBWZW5nYWRhIFByYXNhZCBHb3ZpbmRhbiBhbmQgcG9zdGVk IHRvIHRoZSBJRVRGIHJlcG9zaXRvcnkuDQoNCk5hbWU6CQlkcmFmdC1nbXNtLWJlc3MtZXZwbi1i ZmQNClJldmlzaW9uOgkwMA0KVGl0bGU6CQlGYXVsdCBNYW5hZ2VtZW50IGZvciBFVlBOIG5ldHdv cmtzDQpEb2N1bWVudCBkYXRlOgkyMDE2LTA3LTA2DQpHcm91cDoJCUluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlz c2lvbg0KUGFnZXM6CQkxMA0KVVJMOiAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2lu dGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC1nbXNtLWJlc3MtZXZwbi1iZmQtMDAudHh0DQpTdGF0dXM6ICAg ICAgICAgaHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtZ21zbS1iZXNzLWV2 cG4tYmZkLw0KSHRtbGl6ZWQ6ICAgICAgIGh0dHBzOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFm dC1nbXNtLWJlc3MtZXZwbi1iZmQtMDANCg0KDQpBYnN0cmFjdDoNCiAgIFRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQg cHJvcG9zZXMgYSBwcm9hY3RpdmUsIGluLWJhbmQgbmV0d29yayBPQU0gbWVjaGFuaXNtIHRvDQog ICBkZXRlY3QgbG9zcyBvZiBjb250aW51aXR5IGFuZCBtaXNzLWNvbm5lY3Rpb24gZmF1bHRzIHRo YXQgYWZmZWN0DQogICB1bmljYXN0IGFuZCBtdWx0aS1kZXN0aW5hdGlvbiBwYXRocywgdXNlZCBi eSBCcm9hZGNhc3QsIHVua25vd24NCiAgIFVuaWNhc3QgYW5kIE11bHRpY2FzdCB0cmFmZmljLCBp biBhbiBFVlBOIG5ldHdvcmsuICBUaGUgbWVjaGFuaXNtcw0KICAgcHJvcG9zZWQgaW4gdGhlIGRy YWZ0IHVzZSB0aGUgcHJpbmNpcGxlcyBvZiB0aGUgd2lkZWx5IGFkb3B0ZWQNCiAgIEJpZGlyZWN0 aW9uYWwgRm9yd2FyZGluZyBEZXRlY3Rpb24gcHJvdG9jb2wuDQoNCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICANCg0KDQpQbGVhc2Ugbm90ZSB0aGF0IGl0IG1heSB0YWtlIGEgY291cGxlIG9mIG1p bnV0ZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgdGltZSBvZiBzdWJtaXNzaW9uIHVudGlsIHRoZSBodG1saXplZCB2ZXJz aW9uIGFuZCBkaWZmIGFyZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQgdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcuDQoNClRoZSBJRVRG IFNlY3JldGFyaWF0DQoNCg== From nobody Wed Jul 20 03:20:44 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B4312D0B9 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 03:20:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5to_M0pp2NW4 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 03:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A13B812D0A5 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 03:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 76827DDFD4FDA for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:20:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u6KAKdVa002842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:20:39 GMT Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u6KAKddD011039 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:20:39 +0200 Received: from [135.224.216.105] (135.239.27.38) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:20:38 +0200 Message-ID: <578F5070.4080200@nokia.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:20:32 +0200 From: Martin Vigoureux User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BESS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [135.239.27.38] Archived-At: Subject: [bess] test - please ignore X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:20:43 -0000 From nobody Wed Jul 20 10:01:06 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D2612B069 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:01:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h0jREhzzJWIx for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2374D12D104 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 10:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6KH0sie005011; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:00:54 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (jplon-nat14.juniper.net [193.110.55.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6KH0qrW004992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:00:53 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:00:54 +0100 Message-ID: <047b01d1e2a8$47f7cba0$d7e762e0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AdHiqCHCXnFKBUulRJeMgGkgoO3iGA== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22464.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--3.625-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--3.625-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: jR9tipKfZ3PoyJCZV0+mCLU+IyHhkXf11zuqJnnszJXjsTquy0JRi1kx R/OK+HA0Vfyg2z+Xku+BdBq3/4v69Ko5Ts+FHfZ+04Rmz/agfdxXHdeZW3UdTmM6pQCdtJeJp1m u6rSOja7LAysjaPePecFy761b8se4VjB2sAdY1mXmAId+2bAQwn0tCKdnhB58vqq8s2MNhPB/KM EkOe61SFBIVsvVu9ABWBd6ltyXuvuLlj6qgnMHN2eUhSCZslEgc2rpUvhoHTEuiKHG5V2C4oCke TNWz0OKQKYnM064JbgsWk6kgHQKJL8fWZMjRxPukFwzkiaz8WLoer1EJMvG+yy0eZxd5bV4FVIZ bguNbjQVic9Khd8bx43dNLmVO1nyftwZ3X11IV0= Archived-At: Cc: Qin Wu Subject: [bess] When is a service model not a service model? X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 17:01:05 -0000 Hello BESS, Just wanted to draw your attention to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained/ This draft (by the L3SM chairs) attempts to describe what a service model is in order to distinguish the work we do in L3SM from the work done elsewhere in the IETF (such as BESS). What we don't want to do is say that the data models in BESS are in any way wrong, bad, evil, or inappropriate. Indeed, our Figure 3 shows (we hope) where some of BESS's models might plug in, and how this is different from where L3SM's model plugs in. It is inevitably a first attempt at getting this right. We would definitely appreciate your opinions which would ideally be sent to the OPSAWG mailing list. Thanks, Adrian From nobody Thu Jul 21 05:39:13 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0FE412DA63; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:39:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.808 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DMKZ8kAHJ5ZW; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04B2F12DA18; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:39:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2752; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1469104748; x=1470314348; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=4zhsmLmN1NqbnKq4kAKDaSR+DOC0Pn1Omp4LoxhbXzA=; b=AbxD/jstpHX7Wjrnq/oc1JVt9Q8Xi2QJhCbG5U4EyeK32s/7Gt4FYZAr ROKzr4DdAcdptNXT1qoCqxLTXg51pFj81b9QRAh/mLvJEU5ckzQpgXGdC jOdKkXJE69n4hKYs9jX/z57XGwpGKotrW1AAmQvtl4qEYssmKgTn3QJcG A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AmAgD4wZBX/5pdJa1dgz9WfAa4XoF7I?= =?us-ascii?q?oV4AoEtOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeEXAEBBXcCDAQCAQgRBAEBKAcyFAkIAgQBDQWIMA6?= =?us-ascii?q?9AwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARyGKoRNihsBBI4MOYphAYYViFWBbE6EC?= =?us-ascii?q?4h1kCABHjaDc24Bhk5/AQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,399,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="128368079" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jul 2016 12:39:07 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (xch-aln-016.cisco.com [173.36.7.26]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6LCd767012483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:39:07 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (173.36.7.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:39:06 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:39:06 -0500 From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" To: "Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" , "bess@ietf.org" , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "mpls@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHR14OkSoSUTH6fiECcys2OUSg506AfGXbQgARGo4A= Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:39:06 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160706124054.7765.88133.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.5.160527 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.86.240.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "Ali Sajassi \(sajassi\)" , "draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] New Version Notification for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-00.txt X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:39:11 -0000 Hi, Some questions on the draft: - Section 4 mentions that LSP-Ping is needed to exchange discriminators because the MPLS label stack doesn=B9t contain enough information to disambiguate the sender of the session. Isn=B9t the IP hdr enough? - Section 7.1.1 mentions SH label, I believe this is the ESI label as per section 8.3 of RFC7432? - There are alternative encapsulation formats with sub-TLVs for unicast and multicast. Is it an alternative to the label stack or on top of the label stack? Even if obvious, I think the advantage of those alternative formats should be stated. Regards, Reshad. On 2016-07-19, 4:24 AM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi)" wrote: >Hello all, > draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-00.txt was presented by Greg Mirsky at IETF 96 >MPLS WG and is scheduled for presentation at BESS and BFD WG meetings. >Authors request comments/ suggestions on this draft. >Thanks >Prasad > >-----Original Message----- >From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] >Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 6:11 PM >To: MALLIK MUDIGONDA (mmudigon) ; MALLIK MUDIGONDA >(mmudigon) ; Greg Mirsky >; Vengada Prasad Govindan (venggovi) >; Gregory Mirsky ; Ali >Sajassi (sajassi) >Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-00.txt > > >A new version of I-D, draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-00.txt has been >successfully submitted by Vengada Prasad Govindan and posted to the IETF >repository. > >Name: draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd >Revision: 00 >Title: Fault Management for EVPN networks >Document date: 2016-07-06 >Group: Individual Submission >Pages: 10 >URL: =20 >https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-00.txt >Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd/ >Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-00 > > >Abstract: > This document proposes a proactive, in-band network OAM mechanism to > detect loss of continuity and miss-connection faults that affect > unicast and multi-destination paths, used by Broadcast, unknown > Unicast and Multicast traffic, in an EVPN network. The mechanisms > proposed in the draft use the principles of the widely adopted > Bidirectional Forwarding Detection protocol. > > =20 > =20 > > >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at >tools.ietf.org. > >The IETF Secretariat > From nobody Thu Jul 21 05:46:25 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C7B12D149; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:46:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.808 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c9CpsoVPAb3B; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCBD112DAE1; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:46:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1938; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1469105169; x=1470314769; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=VYVSAx7caXSkt4KjZDmeGUFrIDlUvldBByYr8JZrTJs=; b=iAPr9K4+MldOKgvST2Anhoj0PBUFzkYhGB+or/TSpGasYPLuCw/+2MmH 2T+RxHGxhn2F9bi6hXeDwbp7HEaNP3pUX71WxyozBwN2OVDHGnKd88b92 mujTtZfXhGP1v2N5j9SzpqTjkTeMRkdUlSf0WExMuSz5vQb8I+GniDB0i c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AmAgCmw5BX/4gNJK1dgz9WfAa4XoF7I?= =?us-ascii?q?oV4AoEtOBQBAQEBAQEBZRwLhF0BBQEBODQLEAIBCC0JECcLJQIEDgWIMA69AgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARyGKoRNhH+FHAWZJgGGFYhVgWxOhAuIdZAgA?= =?us-ascii?q?R42ghAXgUxuhk9/AQEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,399,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="300606076" Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Jul 2016 12:46:08 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (xch-aln-002.cisco.com [173.36.7.12]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6LCk8IC013185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:46:08 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-002.cisco.com (173.36.7.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:46:07 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:46:07 -0500 From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" To: "draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHR2FsqzWHHff9cEkef4MUe/rKkfqAjYGIA Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:46:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160707142313.23733.70094.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20160707142313.23733.70094.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.5.160527 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.86.240.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6C13DD96ABDF9E43A45EA669D10BBDD9@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Gregory Mirsky , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "bess@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:46:17 -0000 I second the comments made by Greg, Ccing BFD WG since BFD multipoint is used for failure detection and BGP is being extended to carry BFD discriminator. Regards, Reshad. On 2016-07-07, 10:23 AM, "BESS on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org" wrote: > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS of the IETF. > > Title : Multicast VPN fast upstream failover > Authors : Thomas Morin > Robert Kebler > Filename : draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt > Pages : 18 > Date : 2016-07-07 > >Abstract: > This document defines multicast VPN extensions and procedures that > allow fast failover for upstream failures, by allowing downstream PEs > to take into account the status of Provider-Tunnels (P-tunnels) when > selecting the upstream PE for a VPN multicast flow, and extending BGP > MVPN routing so that a C-multicast route can be advertized toward a > standby upstream PE. > > > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover/ > >There's also a htmlized version available at: >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01 > >A diff from the previous version is available at: >https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01 > > >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >submission >until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Fri Jul 22 04:29:07 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C91012DC6F for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 04:29:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.204 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_BR_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4vDDAZsPQrVC for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 04:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-nor36.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 373AD12DBEA for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 04:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by opfednr20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id BB5C34029D for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:29:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.66]) by opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 9C1AA20066 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:29:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::ec23:902:c31f:731c]) by OPEXCLILMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::95e2:eb4b:3053:fabf%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:29:02 +0200 From: To: "bess@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: draft minutes from our session at IETF 96 Thread-Index: AdHkDD7pTjUuqTiKS1CDR7lPwEbmDA== Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:29:01 +0000 Message-ID: <14687_1469186942_5792037E_14687_3711_1_AC1ADC68A92CF94FA8CFCB406C1CBE3D09E30C11@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AC1ADC68A92CF94FA8CFCB406C1CBE3D09E30C11OPEXCLILM43corp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: [bess] draft minutes from our session at IETF 96 X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:29:06 -0000 --_000_AC1ADC68A92CF94FA8CFCB406C1CBE3D09E30C11OPEXCLILM43corp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HI everyone, The draft minutes of yesterday's session are here: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-bess Please read and suggest any relevant correction or adjustment. These minutes will become final on September 12th. Best, -Thomas/Martin ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou = falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been = modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. --_000_AC1ADC68A92CF94FA8CFCB406C1CBE3D09E30C11OPEXCLILM43corp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
HI everyone,

The draft minutes of yesterday's session are here:
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-bess

Please read and suggest any relevant correction or adjustment.
These minutes will become final on September 12th.

Best,

-Thomas/Martin
































































______________________________________________________________________=
___________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu=
 ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el=
ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou =
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf=
ormation that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele=
te this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been =
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
--_000_AC1ADC68A92CF94FA8CFCB406C1CBE3D09E30C11OPEXCLILM43corp_-- From nobody Fri Jul 22 14:07:01 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FC812D82F; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:06:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.808 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yDK3CLDLVBUR; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7BCF12D1D2; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:06:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2440; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1469221617; x=1470431217; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=AL/OtPryCKEegfj9WgjGlVn6oJ/fjPN4N8ocUz+y0R8=; b=XFWN4LM/KLgWXuGpplKwR23awG6+MQLaueCVu4UExKf98GNsysur+uuQ JLnYjE/jOSm9LqpBt1OdxgtPN3KqkJo6g1D5liIbxpxoeIrzbXYo0/6wV 1LYI25iWhDCZdH6pumUG4ROk9zTQs29ojavx/cOFgDDMV+9fNTcB7ons9 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BxAwCSipJX/4MNJK1egz9WfAa4XIF7I?= =?us-ascii?q?4V5AoEyOBQBAQEBAQEBXSeEXQEFAQE4NAsQAgEIGBUJECcLJQIEAQ0FiDAOujQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEchiqETYR/hRwFmSYBhhWIWIFsToQLiHWQI?= =?us-ascii?q?AEeNoIQF4FMbod0fwEBAQ?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,405,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="128954609" Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 22 Jul 2016 21:06:56 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6ML6uN6027075 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 21:06:56 GMT Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:06:56 -0500 Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:06:56 -0500 From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" To: "draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover@ietf.org" , "draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHR2FsqzWHHff9cEkef4MUe/rKkfqAjYGIAgAIeSgA= Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 21:06:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20160707142313.23733.70094.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.5.160527 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.86.253.234] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4477EB61DD3F6E4BA6BF27FD0C84B7F4@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: Gregory Mirsky , "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "bess@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 21:07:00 -0000 Since BGP may be used to exchange discriminators for EVPN also, would it make sense to have a sepaarte BESS draft just for BFD discriminator exchange? Regards, Reshad. On 2016-07-21, 2:46 PM, "BESS on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: >I second the comments made by Greg, Ccing BFD WG since BFD multipoint is >used for failure detection and BGP is being extended to carry BFD >discriminator. > >Regards, >Reshad. > > > >On 2016-07-07, 10:23 AM, "BESS on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org" > wrote: > >> >>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>directories. >>This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS of the IETF. >> >> Title : Multicast VPN fast upstream failover >> Authors : Thomas Morin >> Robert Kebler >> Filename : draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt >> Pages : 18 >> Date : 2016-07-07 >> >>Abstract: >> This document defines multicast VPN extensions and procedures that >> allow fast failover for upstream failures, by allowing downstream PEs >> to take into account the status of Provider-Tunnels (P-tunnels) when >> selecting the upstream PE for a VPN multicast flow, and extending BGP >> MVPN routing so that a C-multicast route can be advertized toward a >> standby upstream PE. >> >> >> >>The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover/ >> >>There's also a htmlized version available at: >>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01 >> >>A diff from the previous version is available at: >>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01 >> >> >>Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>submission >>until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>BESS mailing list >>BESS@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Fri Jul 22 23:19:41 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24C412D8E2; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 23:19:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oqpo6CjBvbt9; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 23:19:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (unknown [198.24.6.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0769F12D903; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 23:19:34 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79886d000002334-4d-57930107aac0 Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usplmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E9.BB.09012.70103975; Sat, 23 Jul 2016 07:30:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Sat, 23 Jul 2016 02:19:33 -0400 From: Gregory Mirsky To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" , "draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover@ietf.org" , "draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHR2FsqzWHHff9cEkef4MUe/rKkfqAjYGIAgAIeSgCAACPmAA== Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 06:19:33 +0000 Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221ADC6A3@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> References: <20160707142313.23733.70094.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupmkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonRJeDcXK4wcJFghYrjs9ktpjy5yCT xacDrxgtrq1oZbf4/GcbowOrx5TfG1k9liz5yRTAFMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVceHkdZaCbxIV 7w8eYm9g3CrSxcjJISFgItE3t4ERwhaTuHBvPVsXIxeHkMBRRonLVyeAJYQEljNKnP2aB2Kz CRhJvNjYww5SJCJwl1Hi/M3fLCAJZgEviRkH9rOB2MICnhKrPzYBNXMAFXlJLOowAgmLCDhJ 9MxdxwRiswioSrw9cJEZxOYV8JXYcv89E8TibkaJ7TvugiU4BQwkrv7cBWYzAl33/dQaJohd 4hK3nsxngrhaQGLJnvPMELaoxMvH/1ghbCWJOa+vMUPU60gs2P2JDcLWlli28DXUYkGJkzOf sExgFJuFZOwsJC2zkLTMQtKygJFlFSNHaXFBTm66kcEmRmAUHZNg093BeH+65yFGAQ5GJR5e hfhJ4UKsiWXFlbmHGCU4mJVEeBs5J4cL8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES5xV7pBguJJCe WJKanZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYJTvKz1w7djl0sWbMzkZldUeZFxV3/1If/Hnn1N0ldW4/+wxPb1N +usyju9e1x023VqyZtGBy7OCIn7ZqL7f1cHTfmaRyQaR5EiHP7OObDkoWv14B+s0/U/G8m2v cx8esd6ZlFCx8TL3eTfBF7clHiUY9tq8TDoeIf1TewWT5CFlwU0aS9IKbGOUWIozEg21mIuK EwFVZ/ORngIAAA== Archived-At: Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "bess@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 06:19:40 -0000 Hi Reshad, I absolutely agree and encourage new draft that defines the BGP-BFD Attribu= te and its relationship with BFD Discriminator TLV in LSP Ping (RFC 5884). = And another question to the authors of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover, = Do you see scenarios where draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-active-tail can be use= d? Regards, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) [mailto:rrahman@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 11:07 PM To: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover@ietf.org; draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd@i= etf.org Cc: Gregory Mirsky ; rtg-bfd@ietf.org; bess@ie= tf.org Subject: Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt Since BGP may be used to exchange discriminators for EVPN also, would it ma= ke sense to have a sepaarte BESS draft just for BFD discriminator exchange? Regards, Reshad. On 2016-07-21, 2:46 PM, "BESS on behalf of Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" wrote: >I second the comments made by Greg, Ccing BFD WG since BFD multipoint=20 >is used for failure detection and BGP is being extended to carry BFD=20 >discriminator. > >Regards, >Reshad. > > > >On 2016-07-07, 10:23 AM, "BESS on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org" > wrote: > >> >>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts=20 >>directories. >>This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS of the IETF. >> >> Title : Multicast VPN fast upstream failover >> Authors : Thomas Morin >> Robert Kebler >> Filename : draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01.txt >> Pages : 18 >> Date : 2016-07-07 >> >>Abstract: >> This document defines multicast VPN extensions and procedures that >> allow fast failover for upstream failures, by allowing downstream PEs >> to take into account the status of Provider-Tunnels (P-tunnels) when >> selecting the upstream PE for a VPN multicast flow, and extending BGP >> MVPN routing so that a C-multicast route can be advertized toward a >> standby upstream PE. >> >> >> >>The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover/ >> >>There's also a htmlized version available at: >>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-01 >> >>A diff from the previous version is available at: >>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-0 >>1 >> >> >>Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of=20 >>submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at=20 >>tools.ietf.org. >> >>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>BESS mailing list >>BESS@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess From nobody Mon Jul 25 16:42:56 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED0C12B026; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:42:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_BR_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WFqCWqZHcRV5; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D33E212D867; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:42:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id i5so177690324wmg.0; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:42:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/pjgK/PUCwaB9ncsn/7RWmlGzIGskNtCdoJ9m0SFAlg=; b=yuEogx7fKgj6kQQ23pY+edsusNyk2uO2kniFox3hxujHdvFQPArLkT98qCZfoBIm89 ogZv/cP05PN968jvYJJtdq1MUbM4DBCmo4n8yh9YHEPH8ta4BKpwOBaHM17Bh7mwq1l+ ixBjXd/HsQJzeDTxtI8auzEA0RJiuQj6YTqql02wVClrFJ6tbHrH0FRBTfzk3Xr2niiU tS6HNC19rka0si7qjnQjUdCqVxHgjzQWhnFlbZDo/neRVj6GLNI+BiHUxv0H9XodSb1D bVlPyS92m1qvESsfW1ojA9DZbOhmyZjYHO9KpOy6WvAeT61mtMfrGOo2kiBnMg2OpWcH dtLg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/pjgK/PUCwaB9ncsn/7RWmlGzIGskNtCdoJ9m0SFAlg=; b=E4A9JJ0+NL5wwcNjkowVD6fAXi/VxWeQsdh8TXQZSue5ImIV3+0OHmzv8rtsTcDe9B 5gzqSMDjScbSCYD90Cv4q/kTgAa+Efo1wNxglaGuidqsbM9faLfLyqD8nAApA68Omb3k QYJBcc+ln178nFJEGMrZyabAV0VOR7qtAK872WlbgnYe1zNrOHQDQezHxA6rVR6aBf91 cXOR0j9emYDHx7B2WaUuCdTUlyibWfFK7SdDPoonZ9W3lSTtAIL4JB1N39SKrGgWvHoD LNtjaEwpfxDu/FtbXHKlVGtSx7FQGqDDDW2NR5hMlr+J8lMjoRBtN/2jNL5fXa7LAsX/ DmlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouu8y3Hvn7jtlf4UkOVSvwExkNPO/0i3Gk8Zm4sb5s6m6LYQ+3axokFfc2Hv3puULvjOZyYvPrXC36c6fg== X-Received: by 10.28.71.197 with SMTP id m66mr23091216wmi.26.1469490155251; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:42:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.200.162 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:42:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <14687_1469186942_5792037E_14687_3711_1_AC1ADC68A92CF94FA8CFCB406C1CBE3D09E30C11@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <14687_1469186942_5792037E_14687_3711_1_AC1ADC68A92CF94FA8CFCB406C1CBE3D09E30C11@OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> From: Greg Mirsky Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:42:34 -0700 Message-ID: To: thomas.morin@orange.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c06cbe2b46da205387e5659 Archived-At: Cc: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" , "bess@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [bess] draft minutes from our session at IETF 96 X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 23:42:46 -0000 --94eb2c06cbe2b46da205387e5659 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Thomas, et. al, my note is regarding the presentation and the discussion of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover. Minutes state "some discussion on BFD boostraping and suggestion we may want to have BFD WG aware". I recall that I've used stronger than "may want" encouragement to bring BFD-related work to attention of the BFD WG. In fact, I've suggested that the work on bootstrapping p2mp BFD session belongs in BFD WG. And shortly after the meeting BFD WG co-chair, Reshad Rahman, concurred with my that comment on the mailing list. Regards, Greg On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 4:29 AM, wrote: > HI everyone, > > The draft minutes of yesterday's session are here: > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-bess > > Please read and suggest any relevant correction or adjustment. > These minutes will become final on September 12th. > > Best, > > -Thomas/Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > --94eb2c06cbe2b46da205387e5659 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Thomas, et. al,
my note is regarding the presentati= on and the discussion of=C2=A0draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover.
Minutes state "some discussion on BFD boo= straping and suggestion we may want to have BFD WG aware".
I recall that I= 've used stronger than "may want" encouragement to bring BFD-= related work to attention of the BFD WG. In fact, I've suggested that t= he work on bootstrapping p2mp BFD session belongs in BFD WG. And shortly af= ter the meeting BFD WG co-chair, Reshad Rahman, concurred with my that comm= ent on the mailing list.

Regards, Greg

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 4:29 AM, <thomas.morin@orange.com> wrote:
______________________________________________________________________=
___________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden=
tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu=
 ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les message=
s electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou =
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf=
ormation that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele=
te this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been =
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess


--94eb2c06cbe2b46da205387e5659-- From nobody Wed Jul 27 15:57:12 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietf.org Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12DF412D9E9; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 15:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.29.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20160727225707.10568.36038.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 15:57:07 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: aretana@cisco.com, thomas.morin@orange.com, bess-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-ir@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org Subject: [bess] Last Call: (Ingress Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 22:57:07 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to consider the following document: - 'Ingress Replication Tunnels in Multicast VPN' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-08-10. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract RFCs 6513, 6514, and other RFCs describe procedures by which a Service Provider may offer Multicast VPN service to its customers. These procedures create point-to-multipoint (P2MP) or multipoint-to- multipoint trees across the Service Provider's backbone. One type of P2MP tree that may be used is known as an "Ingress Replication (IR) tunnel". In an IR tunnel, a parent node need not be "directly connected" to its child nodes. When a parent node has to send a multicast data packet to its child nodes, it does not use layer 2 multicast, IP multicast, or MPLS multicast to do so. Rather, it makes n individual copies, and then unicasts each copy, through an IP or MPLS unicast tunnel, to exactly one child node. While the prior MVPN specifications allow the use of IR tunnels, those specifications are not always very clear or explicit about how the MVPN protocol elements and procedures are applied to IR tunnels. This document updates RFCs 6513 and 6514 by adding additional details that are specific to the use of IR tunnels. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-ir/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-ir/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.