Hello All,
We had presented
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-trr-bess-bgp-srv6-args/ at the IETF
116.
The slides are available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/materials/slides-116-bess-draft-trr-bess-srv6-args-00.pdf
Since this draft aims to fix some issues in the RFC9252 that
Hi Sasha,
I think the misunderstanding could be solved if we worded the association to
the virtual ES differently. The association is really to a group of PWs that
share the same unidirectional LSP pair (rather than to the LSP, which I can see
why is confusing). The multi-homing procedures are
Hi Yubao,
Since you are referring to the A-D per EVI route signaling the F bit, I assume
you talk about EVPN VPWS, however you mention MAC-VRF, so that’s confusing.
The case you are describing – propagation of the L2-attributes extended
community when readvertising the A-D per EVI or IMET route
Jorge,
Lots of thanks for your response.
It seems we are mainly on the same page.
It would be nice if you could clarify the point about "a group of PW that share
the same pair of unidirectional LSPs" and mention the need to identify the
ingress LSP from which the PW packets have been received b
Hi Jorge,
Thank you for your response.
I talk about EVPN VPLS per
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-07#name-evpn-layer-2-attributes-ext.
That section of rfc7432bis extends L2-Attr EC (which is defined in EVPN VPWS)
to EVPN VPLS.
And my case 2 taks ab
