Sue, On 2/2/15, 9:25 PM, "Susan Hares" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Russ and John: > >I have concerns about the issues Russ has raised as well as other concerns >regarding the EVPN. As I mentioned at the last IETF's BESS meeting, John >Scudder and I have been discussing the next-hop issues in BESS drafts to >see >if IDR could create better BGP mechanism for the future BESS drafts. In >this review, it became clear that several of the mechanism in EVPN could >have been done in a simpler and more elegant way in BGP. It was not the >first EVPN specification that made this clear, but the review of several >drafts. If there are any specific suggestions, I¹d like to hear it. At the IETF BESS meeting, I believe I didn¹t hear anything specific. > > >I am pragmatic. It is auth-48. If the EVPN is widely shipping and >deployed >in networks, it is unlikely that the vendors or providers want to change >it >at this point. They have coded the EVPN solution. My agreement with the >BESS chairs was this investigation was not to derail their work. It should be noted that this draft was written in collaboration with our BGP colleagues: Yakov, Pedro, and Keyur right from the beginning. So, if there are any issues, I am sure not just me but these folks would also be interested in hearing them. Regards, Ali > > >If you are interested, I would appreciate a phone conversation with both >of >you. John Scudder indicated that John Drake would be the best person >within >Juniper to discuss this point with. Perhaps we can talk about all of >these >issues. Since it is a BGP mechanism, perhaps if we create a more elegant >BGP mechanism it could be considered as a "bis" for EVPN drafts. I >suspect >EVPN use is only going to grow, and better BGP mechanisms usually mean >more >efficient and scalable code. > >Best wishes, > >Sue Hares > >-----Original Message----- >From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russ White >Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 7:12 PM >To: 'John E Drake'; 'Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)' >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [bess] EVPN Draft Comments > > >> [JD] What RFC 7432 actually says is: "The MAC Address Length field >> is in bits, and it is set to 48. >> MAC address length values other than 48 bits are outside the scope of >> this document." So, The MAC Address field is a variable length field >> whose length is currently set to 48. > >And the figure clearly shows the length at 6 octets only. I'm not arguing >the draft didn't _intend_ to make this a variable length field -- I'm >arguing the draft, as written, can easily be misinterpreted, and could use >clarification. > >> [JD] Just because you don't like/understand it doesn't necessarily >> mean it's wrong. > >John -- you could have said, "I think it's elegant because..." -- or, "I >agree it's not perfect, but we chose this solution because..." Instead, >you >decided to launch a personal attack, calling me >stupid/uneducated/ignorant/whatever. This is one of the things that drives >me absolutely nuts about working in the IETF -- we cannot hold ourselves >to >an actual discussion, we have to find some way to make claims about other >people personally, no matter whether or not we think they're true, etc. >The >next time someone says, "I can't figure out why we are losing >participation >in the IETF," go back and reread your response. > >Now -- to return to the actual topic at hand -- I find the idea of binding >things together tightly, and then creating an "alias," rather than >creating >a looser bind and map in the first place, is worse. That might not fit >what >you think, but it's still something worth mentioning. > >:-) > >Russ > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
