Hi Jim,
Apologies, missed responding to the EVPN-IRB / EVPN IRB comment below. Yes, they are the same. I did fix this in rev19 to use EVPN-IRB consistently at all places. Thanks, Neeraj > On Dec 3, 2024, at 5:28 AM, James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Neeraj, > > Thanks. However, you did not address my comment about ‘EVPN IRB’ and > ‘EVPN-IRB’ terms. Are they the same thing or somehow different? If not, can > you pick one and use it throughout the document. > > Jim > > From: Neeraj Malhotra <neeraj.i...@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, December 2, 2024 at 8:51 PM > To: James Guichard <james.n.guich...@futurewei.com> > Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobil...@ietf.org > <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobil...@ietf.org>, bess-cha...@ietf.org > <bess-cha...@ietf.org>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, > slitkows.i...@gmail.com <slitkows.i...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [bess] Jim Guichard's No Objection on > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18: (with COMMENT) > > > Hi Jim, > > Thanks for the review and comments. Have uploaded rev19 to address comments > received from you and other reviewers. > > Please see inline for details. > > > I am having trouble phasing the first sentence of the Abstract. The text says: > > This document specifies extensions to Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Integrated > Routing and Bridging (IRB) procedures specified in RFC7432 and > RFC9135 to enhance the mobility mechanisms for EVPN IRB-based > networks. > > Are the extensions for both EVPN and IRB procedures or just IRB procedures. It > seems like the latter. If that is the case, then only RFC9135 is relevant and > not RFC7432 (which should be removed from the text). In addition, you use both > 'EVPN IRB' and 'EVPN-IRB' terms interchangeably so please pick one and use it > throughout the document. > > [NM]: EVPN IRB is covered by a combination of RFC 7432 and RFC 9135. Since > RFC 9135 pretty much leverages the mobility procedure for IRB use cases as is > from RFC 7432 and does not introduce any new sequence number assignment > methods, mobility procedures across both of these RFCs are insufficient to > cover all EVPN IRB use cases. We feel that it is best that this draft clearly > calls out enhancements on top of both RFC 7432 and 9135. This was also the > input from multiple reviewers earlier. > > > Section 2: > > * Overlay: L3 and L2 Virtual Private Network (VPN) enabled via NVO, > SRv6, or MPLS service layer encapsulation. > > [NM]: addressed in rev19. > > Thanks, > Neeraj >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
