Hi Jim, Apologies, I 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 2, 2024, at 5:51 PM, Neeraj Malhotra <neeraj.i...@gmail.com> wrote: 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
