Michael,
The chairs asked me to take my comments to the list, so here you are.
1. Section 2.6 – RT5 synch
* using non-zero ESI *and* non-zero GW-IP in the IP Prefix routes is
non-backwards compatible with draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement and
will break interoperability with
Hi Jorge,
Thanks for your email, but I still don't understand why an ESI is needed here.
I know there is a static-route 1.1.1.1 on Leaf-2, but my question is that how
leaf-2 knows the overlay nexthop of 50.0.0.0/24 is 1.1.1.1 (by which that ARP
entry is found out at last)?
As you illu
Hi Yubao,
Please see in-line with [jorge].
Thanks.
Jorge
From: wang.yub...@zte.com.cn
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 9:53 AM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re:Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02
Hi Jorge,
Thanks for your email,
Hi Jorge,
Please see in-line with [Yubao_2].
Thanks,
Yubao
原始邮件
发件人：Rabadan,Jorge(Nokia-US/MountainView)
收件人：王玉保10045807;
抄送人：bess@ietf.org;
日 期 ：2021年07月28日 18:18
主 题 ：Re: Re:Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02
Hi Yubao,
Please see in-line wi
Hi Yubao,
Assuming we agree we can’t have a RT5 with non-zero GW-IP and non-zero ESI,
I’ll try to compare using a) gw-ip *or* b) ESI in the RT5 for this use case
when leaf-5 is a non-upgraded PE:
a) non-zero GW-IP. Suppose if Leaf-5 is a non-upgraded PE but it complies with
draft-evpn-prefix-a
Dear draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp authors,
I have some comments about yesterday’s presentation of revision 03. In the
slides, this caught my attention:
“Current Updates (Version 03)
• Includes procedures for binding MVPN/EVPN service to an ingress-replication
P-tunnel in a Segment Routing
Hi Jorge,
I don't agree with you for that the recursive resolution for such ESI overlay
index is already there.
Current recursive resolution is very different from such ESI overlay index.
Please see in-line with [Yubao].
Thanks,
Yubao
原始邮件
发件人：Rabadan,Jorge(Noki
Hi Yubao,
More in-line.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: wang.yub...@zte.com.cn
Date: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 5:35 PM
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re:Comments on draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-02
Hi Jorge,
I don't agree with you for that the rec
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Gateway Auto-Discovery and Route Advertisement for Segment Routing
Enabled Site Interconnection'
(draft-ietf-bess-datacenter-gateway-13.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the BGP Enabled ServiceS Working Group.
The IESG
Hi Jorge,
I still don't agree that the procedures on Leaf-5 are already in
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11.
Note that the key of RT1 route is , not just .
Take the DGW1 of the Bump-in-the-wire use case for example,
If the DGW1 receives a RT-5 route R5 (IPL=24, IP=SN1
10 matches
Mail list logo
