[bess] Port-Based Service Interface in draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Hi, I have a question regarding Section 6.2.1 of 7432bis. This section defines Port-based Service Interface in EVPN as "a special case of the VLAN bundle service interface, where all of the VLANs on the port are p

[bess] Re: Questions about route selection in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-dpath-00

Hi Jeff, Thanks for reviewing this as well. Please see my comments below, inline with [jorge]. Let me know what you think, and based on this we will add some text to clarify those points. Thanks, Jorge From: Jeffrey Haas Date: Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 7:55 AM To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-dp...

[bess] Re: Port-Based Service Interface in draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Hi Sasha, The implementations I know, all the traffic – tagged and untagged – is mapped to the EVPN broadcast domain, for that type of service. Since no pop/push is done of the vlan tags, untagged traffic would be encapsulated into the EVPN packet and forwarded as is. My interpretation in this

[bess] Re: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-01.html (section 1.3

Hi Saumya, Thanks for your patience. “Section https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-01.html#section-1.2 Multi-Homing for IP Prefix Routes in the Interface-less IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF Model

[bess] Re: Queries to authors of https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-01.html (section 1.3.1 IP Aliasing for EVPN IP Prefix route)

Hi Saumya, “In section https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-01.html#section-1.3.1 IP Aliasing for EVPN IP Prefix routes On the multihoming PEs (PE1/2): Routing

[bess] Re: Port-Based Service Interface in draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Jorge, Lots of thanks for a prompt and most helpful response. IMHO the text is Section 6.2.1 should explicitly state your interpretation, i e.: * Untagged customer traffic is encapsulated and forwarded "as is" * Untagged Layer 2 control protocols traffic (identified by carrying well-kno

[bess] Re: Port-Based Service Interface in draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Hi Sasha, I don’t have a strong opinion on your first bullet, if there are no objections. Although it could be interpreted as if RFC7432 didn’t support untagged traffic on port-based service interfaces, which is not the case. About the second bullet, we are not defining L2CP behavior in any of