Re: [bess] Query to authors of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-fast-df-recovery and rfc

Hi Jorge and Bess member Can you please go provide your inputs on the use-case and solution described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saumvinayak-bess-all-df-bum/ Thanks Saumya. From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.o

[bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-02

This email starts a two-week working group last call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03 [1] Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please indicate if you support publishing the draft as a Standards Track RFC. This poll runs until the 15th October 2021 We are also

[bess] CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

Folks Please note this WG last call is for version 03 of the draft (not 02 as stated in the subject line of the email) The link to the draft is: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03 - EVPN control plane for Geneve Apologies for the error

Re: [bess] SRv6 BGP based Overlay Services (draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services-07)

Hi Ketan, I’m sorry I have missed your reply. For SRv6 services, we may have two choice for service. Use SRv6 SID to do best effort, or use to steering to a SRv6 Policy。 Also we may use both of them, but most time we are priority to use the SRv6 Policy than fall-back to SRv6 best effort, while

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc

I'm not aware of any IPR Yours Irrespectively, John Juniper Business Use Only From: BESS On Behalf Of slitkows.i...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 2:02 AM To: 'BESS' Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws

Re: [bess] CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

As co-author, I support this document for publication as standards track RFC. Not aware of any relevant IPR. Thanks. Jorge From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 11:00 AM To: bess@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org Subject: CORRECTION WG Last Call

Re: [bess] CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

Support. Thanks, Jim Uttaro From: BESS On Behalf Of Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 5:04 AM To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) ; bess@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bess] CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Imp

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc

As co-author, I support the publication of this document as Standards Track RFC. Not aware of any relevant IPR. Thanks. Jorge From: BESS on behalf of slitkows.i...@gmail.com Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 8:03 AM To: 'BESS' Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc

Support publication of this document. From: slitkows.i...@gmail.com Date: Monday, September 27, 2021 at 11:02 PM To: 'BESS' Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org Subject: WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc Hi, This email starts a two-week working group last call

Re: [bess] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc

I support the publication and not aware of any IPR. Thanks, Sami From: BESS on behalf of "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 8:29 AM To: "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" , 'BESS' Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: [bess] WG Last Call,

Re: [bess] [**EXTERNAL**] RE: CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

I support the publication and not aware of any IPR. Thanks, Sami From: "UTTARO, JAMES" Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 7:29 AM To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" , "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" , "bess@ietf.org" Cc: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org" Subject: [**EXTERN

Re: [bess] [**EXTERNAL**] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc

I support publishing of this draft. Ciena has implemented this draft. Thanks, Himanshu From: BESS on behalf of "slitkows.i...@gmail.com" Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 2:03 AM To: "bess@ietf.org" Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: [**EXTERNAL**] [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implement

Re: [bess] [**EXTERNAL**] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc

As co-author I support an am not aware of any IPR.. Thanks, Jim Uttaro From: BESS On Behalf Of Shah, Himanshu Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 11:54 AM To: slitkows.i...@gmail.com; 'BESS' Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [bess] [**EXTERNAL**] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementa

Re: [bess] CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

Yes/support Cheers, Jeff > On Sep 28, 2021, at 07:04, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) > wrote: > >  > As co-author, I support this document for publication as standards track RFC. > Not aware of any relevant IPR. > > Thanks. > Jorge > > From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) > Date

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc

I support publication ; Cisco / IOS-XR has implemented this draft Regards, Luc André Luc André Burdet | Cisco | laburdet.i...@gmail.com | Tel: +1 613 254 4814 From: Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 02:02 To: 'BESS' Cc: Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc

I support the publication of this draft. I have the following comments and suggested edits. -- Technical comments Section 4.1 I find this statement confusing While "local-bias" MUST be supported along with GENEVE encapsulation, the use of the Ethernet option-TLV is RECOMMENDED to follow

Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc

Sorry, sent to the wrong thread. Will resend to the correct one. On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:02 PM wrote: > Hi, > > > > This email starts a two-week working group last call for > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc [1] > > > > Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, plea

Re: [bess] [**EXTERNAL**] RE: CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

I support the publication of this draft. I have the following comments and suggested edits. -- Technical comments Section 4.1 I find this statement confusing While "local-bias" MUST be supported along with GENEVE encapsulation, the use of the Ethernet option-TLV is RECOMMENDED to follow

Re: [bess] CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

Support Yours Irrespectively, John Juniper Business Use Only From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 5:00 AM To: bess@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org Subject: CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-0

Re: [bess] CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

Support the publication. Not aware of ipr related to this document. Sam On Tue, Sep 28, 2021, 12:59 PM John E Drake wrote: > Support > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > John > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 28, 2021 5

Re: [bess] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Jorge, Thanks, that should help. No need to change the text. Regards, Vinayak From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) [mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 11:25 AM To: Joshi, Vinayak ; The IESG ; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp...@ietf.org; bess-cha...@ietf.

Re: [bess] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Vinayak, Note that I disagree with that. The PE SHOULD MAC-unicast the DAD to the owner and let the owner reply. The proxy response should be the exception, e.g. , when the device is a sleeping IoT device. A proxy response prevents the owner to reply with options that are not defined yet be