Support the publishment of this draft.
Thanks,
Sandy
Original
From: slitkows.i...@gmail.com
To: bess@ietf.org ;
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org ;
Date: 2025年05月22日 00:50
Subject: [bess] WGLC and IPR poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp
__
Support the adoption.
Thanks,
Sandy
Original
From: MatthewBocci(Nokia)
To: BESS ;
Date: 2025年05月19日 17:16
Subject: [bess] WG adoption and IPR check for
draft-burdet-bess-evpn-fast-reroute-09
___
BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org
To unsub
Just resent this draft to the mailing list.
Appreciate for the clarification from authors.
Thanks,
Sandy
Original
From: 张征
To: saja...@cisco.com ;lbur...@cisco.com
;je_dr...@yahoo.com
;jorge.raba...@nokia.com ;
Cc: bess@ietf.org ;
Date: 2024年12月05日 08:36
Subject: [bess] comments on
Hi Ketan,
Thanks! I got it.
Actually the description in draft-ietf-bess-bgp-srv6-args-05 is very clear.
My consideration is from the implementation point of view, but it is OK to
ignore it in the draft.
Best regards,
Sandy
Original
From: KetanTalaulikar
To: 张征7940;
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.or
Hi Ketan,
Thank you very much for your response!
RFC9252 indicates that either 24 bits or 20 bits can be used for efficient
encapsulation, but the transposition scheme is not used exclusively for EVPN
Type 1 and 3 routing.
So there is no need to change RFC9252 to force the use of 24 bits for the
Hi Ketan,
Sorry, my description in my last email was not accurate enough.
Please let me sort out the comments:
In section 3.2.1 in RFC9252, it says that the transposition length can be 20
(due to the MPLS label field size).
From the description of section 4 in RFC9252,
"for the EVPN Ethernet Aut
Hi Ketan,
Thank you for the coming update!
For the second comment, from section 6.1.1 of RFC9252,
‘When using the Transposition Scheme, the Transposition Length MUST be less
than or equal to 24 and less than or equal to the AL.’
If I understand right, the sentence means that the Transposition l
Hi,
I have some comments about the flow label, could you please help me understand
it more clearly:
1. Can the flow label be used with other bottom label, such as the GAL used in
RFC9489. When both of the labels are used, the flow label is no longer the
bottom label, right?
2. In the last par
Hi Jorge,
sorry for the late response.
The mail was put in wrong folder and I just found it.
The update of 11 version looks good to me.
Thanks for the update!
Best regards,
Sandy
Original
From: JorgeRabadan(Nokia)
To: 张征7940;rtg-...@ietf.org ;
Cc: bess@ietf.org
;draft-ietf-be
Support the adoption.
Best regards,
Sandy
Original
From: MichaelMcBride
To: p...@ietf.org ;bess@ietf.org ;
Date: 2024年01月05日 06:40
Subject: [pim] Adoption call: draft-zhao-pim-evpn-multicast-yang in pim
___
pim mailing list
p...@ietf.org
Congratulations Jeffrey!
Best regards,
Sandy
Original
From: AndrewAlston-IETF
To: bess@ietf.org ;
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org ;
Date: 2023年08月04日 10:45
Subject: [bess] Appointment of additional WG Chair
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.or
Support the adoption.
Thanks,
Sandy
原始邮件
发件人：Bocci,Matthew(Nokia-GB)
收件人：draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv...@ietf.org;bess@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2021年04月13日 17:37
主 题 ：[bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for
draft-mishra-bess-deployment-guide-ipv4nlri-ipv6nh-03
Hi Tony,
Thank you very much for your explaining!
I got it. The auto evpn function includes it but the aim is not it.
Much appreciate if you may respond my further comments in my previous email.
Best regards,
Sandy
原始邮件
发件人：AntoniPrzygienda
收件人：张征7940;Jordan Head;Wen Lin;
抄
Hi Tony,
Thank you for your response! It's interesting.
So in some sense, the BGP auto discovery can be achieved by RIFT own way, in
this situration, right?
Please find more comments below with Sandy>.
Best regards,
Sandy
原始邮件
发件人：AntoniPrzygienda
收件人：张征7940;Jordan Head;Wen
Support the advancement of this draft.
Thanks,
Sandy
原始邮件
发件人：slitkows.i...@gmail.com
收件人：draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-la...@ietf.org;bess@ietf.org;
抄送人：bess-cha...@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2020年12月11日 23:54
主 题 ：[bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-ev
Support the adoption.
Thanks,
Sandy
原始邮件
发件人：Bocci,Matthew(Nokia-GB)
收件人：draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-...@ietf.org
;bess@ietf.org ;
抄送人：bess-cha...@ietf.org ;
日 期 ：2020年02月26日 22:42
主 题 ：[bess] WG adoption poll for draft-gmsm-bess-evpn-bfd-04
__
I read this draft and support the adoption.
Thanks,
Sandy
原始邮件
发件人：slitkows.i...@gmail.com
收件人：'BESS' ;draft-wsv-bess-extended-evpn-optimized...@ietf.org
;
抄送人：bess-cha...@ietf.org ;
日 期 ：2020年02月04日 21:50
主 题 ：[bess] WG adoption and IP poll fordraft-wsv-bess-extended-evpn-opt
Support the adoption. This document does make sense.
Thanks,
Sandy
原始邮件
发件人：Bocci,Matthew(Nokia-GB)
收件人：bess@ietf.org ;
抄送人：bess-cha...@ietf.org ;
日 期 ：2019年11月27日 20:37
主 题 ：[bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll fordraft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision-00
Hi authors,
I read this version and have some comments.
Thanks,
Sandy
==
1. In section 6.1, since the example is about AS, if it is better to change the
title of this section to "AS/Area va. Region" ?
2. In section 6.2, the last sentence of the fo
Support the adoption.
Thanks,
Sandy
原始邮件
发件人：stephane.litkow...@orange.com
收件人：bess@ietf.org ;
日 期 ：2019年05月07日 15:37
主 题 ：[bess] WG adoption call & IPR poll for draft-jain-bess-evpn-lsp-ping
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
ht
Hi Mankamana, Chairs,
I'd like to request 10 minutes for "draft-zwm-bess-es-failover-00";
presenter: Sandy Zhang
Thank you very much!
Best regards,
Sandy
原始邮件
发件人：MankamanaMishra(mankamis)
收件人：bess@ietf.org ;
日 期 ：2019年02月26日 00:54
主 题 ：[bess] Slot requests for BESS WG
Hi Greg,
Thank you very much for your clarification!
I made a mistake that I thought the BFD session is the base solution for UMH
failover.
Now I get it. Thank you!
BTW: In section 3.1.2, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-08" may be mentioned as
another example like MPLS FRR.
Thanks,
Sandy
---
Hi Greg,
Thank you for your good modification and clarification!
About two sections I still have some comments, I copy the contents here because
the mail is too long:
1,
3. I am confused with section 3.1.1/3.1.2/3.1.3. IMO only the X-PMSI tunnel's
state influence the BFD session, there is no nee
Hi Greg, Jeffrey, co-authors,
About the questions provided by Jeffrey, I have some concerns, please see below
with Sandy>.
And I have some other questions:
1. According to "draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-19" and the function defined in this
draft, IMO the BFD session should be demultiplexed
Support the adoption.
Thanks,
Sandy
原始邮件
发件人：Jeffrey(Zhaohui)Zhang
收件人：BIER WG ;
日 期 ：2018年10月31日 08:20
主 题 ：[Bier] FW: WG adoption poll
fordraft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-01
___
BIER mailing list
b...@ietf.org
htt
Support the adoption of this draft.
Thanks,
Sandy
原始邮件
发件人：stephane.litkow...@orange.com
收件人：bess@ietf.org
日 期 ：2018年02月26日 16:03
主 题 ：[bess] Call for adoption:draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-01
___
BESS mailing li
Support the publication of this draft.
And in section 3,
"
Note that if there is no installed S-PMSI A-D route for (C-S2,C-G2),
then Route1 would be (C-S2,C-G2)'s match for reception and also its
match for tracking. Also note that if a match for tracking does not
have the LIR f
Support.
IMO it is useful and feasible.
Thanks,
Sandy
原始邮件
发件人： ＜martin.vigour...@nokia.com＞
收件人： ＜bess@ietf.org＞
抄送人： ＜draft-mackie-bess-nsh-bgp-control-pl...@ietf.org＞
日 期 ：2017年03月06日 19:53
主 题 ：[bess] Call for adoption: draft-mackie-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane
Hello wor
28 matches
Mail list logo
