Hi,
Support.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:03 AM wrote:
> Hello working group,
>
>
>
> This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-05 [1].
>
>
>
> A significant amount of update has been introduced since the previous
> WGLC.
Hi,
Support WG adoption as co-author. I am not aware of any IPR related to this
document.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:29 AM wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
>
>
> This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption
> draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-04 [1]
>
>
>
> Please review
Hi,
Very solid and understandable. Couple of minor comments [NM]:
Section 2.1: Layer-2 devices are particularly susceptible to
forwarding loops because of the broadcast nature of the Ethernet
traffic.
[NM]: better to refer to "Layer-2 services" instead of "Layer-2
devices" as the CE or PE device
Hi,
Very solid and understandable. Couple of minor comments [NM]:
Section 2.1: Layer-2 devices are particularly susceptible to
forwarding loops because of the broadcast nature of the Ethernet
traffic.
[NM]: better to refer to "Layer-2 services" instead of "Layer-2
devices" as the CE or PE device
Hi,
Support.
Thanks,
Neeraj
>
> From: BESS on behalf of
> "stephane.litkow...@orange..com"
> Date: Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:53 AM
> To: "draft-rabadan-sajassi-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interwork...@ietf.org"
> ,
> "bess@ietf.org"
> Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org"
> Subject: [bess] WG adoption a
Hi,
Support as co-author. Not aware of any undisclosed IPRs.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:42 AM wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This email begins a two-week poll for adoption of
> draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-04
>
> [1]
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and post any comments
Hi,
Support.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:53 AM wrote:
> Hello Working Group,
>
>
>
> This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy [1].
>
>
>
> This poll runs until *the 28th of June*.
>
>
>
> We are also polling for knowledge of
Hi,
Support adoption.
Few comments below that may be considered for next revision following
adoption:
- assume that proxy ARP behavior described in section 5.2 applies to
proxy for a remote host only (not local hosts). would be good to clarify.
- Fix terminology - "PE" and "NVE" used in
Hi,
Support.
Thanks,
Neeraj
> On Oct 22, 2019, at 7:46 AM,
> wrote:
>
> Hello WG,
>
> This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-04 [1].
>
> This poll runs until * the 5th Of November *.
>
> We are also polling for knowledge of any undiscl
Hi,
Support.
Thanks,
Neeraj
> On Oct 28, 2019, at 3:10 AM,
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for
> draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop [1] ..
>
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.
>
> We are al
Hi,
Support adoption.
Thanks,
Neeraj
> On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:36 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for
> draft-litkowski-bess-rfc5549revision-00 [1] .
>
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS workin
Hi,
Support as co-author. Not aware of any IPR.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:56 AM wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
>
>
> This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-03
> [2]
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list.
Hi John, Jeff,
FYI - latest revision of this draft corrects the BW attribute to be
transitive inline with Ali's explanation below:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-07.txt.
Please do let us know if there are any further concerns.
4.2. EVPN Link Bandwidth Extended Co
Hi John, Jeff,
Could you please confirm that you are fine with the revised text below or if
you have any further input?
Thanks,
Neeraj
> On Oct 14, 2020, at 11:24 AM, Neeraj Malhotra wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi John, Jeff,
>
> FYI - latest revision of this draft corrects t
Hi,
Support.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 12:20 AM wrote:
> Hello WG,
>
>
>
> This email starts a three weeks Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-03 [1]. We add an additional week
> due to the upcoming IETF meeting.
>
>
>
> This poll runs until * the
to a set of EVPN domains that interact with each other.
> You may wish to consider whether guidance for stripping this new Extended
> Community at such domain borders is necessary or not.
>
> Thanks for addressing my concerns.
>
> -- Jeff
>
>
> On Oct 14, 2020, at 2:24 PM,
Hi,
Support.
Thanks,
Neeraj
> On Dec 10, 2020, at 11:05 AM, Dongling Duan (duan)
> wrote:
>
>
> Support
>
> Regards
> Dongling Duan
>
> From: BESS On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 1:23 AM
> To: bess@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-mohanty-bess-weighted
Hi,
Support as co-author. Not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 12:58 AM wrote:
> This email starts a two-week working group last call for
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-01 [1]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and send any comments to the
Hi,
missed mentioning earlier that there are known implementations of this draft.
Thanks,
Neeraj
> On Feb 2, 2021, at 12:06 AM, Neeraj Malhotra wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Support as co-author. Not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
>
> Thanks,
> Neeraj
>
&g
Hi,
Thanks Anoop. Sure, will add the security consideration section.
Neeraj
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:04 PM Anoop Ghanwani
wrote:
> The security considerations section is empty. Is it possible to have that
> updated before the WGLC?
>
> I will try to review and provide more detailed comments.
Hi,
Thanks Stephane. Will update very soon.
Neeraj
> On Feb 11, 2021, at 12:20 AM, slitkows.i...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Hi Authors,
>
> Please address the comments raised by the WG members before we move forward.
> I have fixed the dependency to the individual draft, so now the IPR appears
Hi Stephane,
Just fyi - new revision that addresses comments on this thread has been
uploaded.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:20 AM wrote:
> Hi Authors,
>
>
>
> Please address the comments raised by the WG members before we move
> forward.
>
> I have fixed the dependency to the indi
Hi,
Support adoption. Indeed, much needed!!
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:06 AM wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for
> draft-krattiger-evpn-modes-interop-03 [1].
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group
>
Hi Bruno,
Many thanks for the review comments. We have revised the draft addressing
your comments.
More inline.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:20 AM wrote:
> Hi Stéphane, authors,
>
>
>
> I have not followed the discussions on this document, but I’ll nonetheless
> raise one point re
ed in bullet#2?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sergey
>
> *From:* BESS *On Behalf Of *
> bruno.decra...@orange.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 6, 2021 5:46 AM
> *To:* Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) ;
> Neeraj Malhotra
> *Cc:* slitkows.i...@gmail.com; bess@ietf.org
> *Subj
eight calculation is completely
> optional). I believe we, as a technical community, should give guidance on
> implementing sensible defaults (i.e. "an implementation SHOULD support BW
> weight calculation method") where it makes sense.
>
> --
> Sergey
>
>
> 07
> §5.2 Does not say anything with regards to the new field “Value-unit”. A
> priori, the ratio of bandwidth is only to be computed on bandwidth/EC using
> the same unit, no?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Regards,
>
> --Bruno
>
>
>
> *From**:* Neeraj Malhotra [mailto:nee
e, typo - "attribute t be
>used" should be "to be used"
>- Inconsistent hyperlinking to RFC/draft references in sections 6.1,
>6.3, 13; also inconsistent hyperlinking in the table of contents
>- Section 6.2 contains a reference to a non-existing
asing draft, that we will refresh soon, will reference to this
> draft and will allow the extended community to be advertised with A-D per
> EVI routes in the IP-VRF context.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *From: *Fomin, Sergey (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
>
Hi,
fyi, have addressed all comments on this thread and some more comments from
co-authors in the latest revision (rev14).
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 2:07 PM Neeraj Malhotra
wrote:
>
> Hi Bruno, Sergey,
>
> Thanks for the additional comments and discussion. To summa
Hi,
Support adoption.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 5:42 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <
matthew.bo...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> This email begins a two-week WG adoption poll for
> draft-mohanty-bess-ebgp-dmz-03 [1].
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the
gt;
>
> Regards,
>
> Saumya.
>
>
>
> *From:* Neeraj Malhotra (nmalhotr) [mailto:nmalh...@cisco.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 10, 2021 3:41 PM
> *To:* Dikshit, Saumya ;
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobil...@ietf.org
> *Cc:* bess-cha...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.
Hi,
Support adoption.
Thanks,
Neeraj
>
> From: BESS on behalf of "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)"
>
> Date: Friday, June 1, 2018 at 5:48 AM
> To: "bess@ietf.org"
> Cc: "draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segm...@ietf.org"
>
> Subject: Re: [bess] WG Adoption and IPR Poll for
> draft-saja
Presenters: Neeraj Malhotra OR Ali Sajassi
Draft: Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB,
draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-02
Time: 10 mins
Reason to present: WG adoption poll
Presenters: Neeraj Malhotra OR Ali Sajassi
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:13 AM, wrote
Hi,
I support.
Thanks,
Neeraj
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 8, 2018, at 7:25 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
> wrote:
>
> This email begins a two-week working group last call for
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp-nd-04.txt
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working g
Hi,
Support WH adoption.
Thanks,
Neeraj
>
>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 at 06:38, wrote:
>> Hi WG,
>>
>>
>>
>> This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption of
>> draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-per-mcast-flow-df-election-01 [1]
>>
>>
>>
>> Please review the draft and post any co
Hi Ali, Sasha,
minor comment in case it wasn't already clear - each PE still learns all
MACs in the control plane (for mobility procedures to work) but only
locally connected MACs are installed in the forwarding plane. Hence the
optimization. Ali, please confirm.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Mon, Nov 6, 20
Hi Mallory,
Many thanks for the review. Will update the draft and respond by next week.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:13 AM Mallory Knodel via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Mallory Knodel
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer
Hi Dhruv,
Many thanks for the review. Will update the draft and respond by next week.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 3:01 AM Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> # RTGDIR review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-
Hi,
Support adoption.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 3:51 AM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This email begins a two-week WG adoption and IPR poll for
> draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-09 (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-09
> ).
Hi Susan,
Many thanks for the review and comments below. All of the comments below
are incorporated into revision 23.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 8:48 AM Susan Hares wrote:
> BESS WG, BESS chairs, and authors:
>
>
>
> This is a requested review from IDR chairs for
> draft-ietf-bess
Hi Gunter,
Apologies again for taking some time and many thanks for a very detailed
review to improve the draft readability as well as some very good comments.
Categorization of comments as [major], [minor], [re-edit] really helps.
I have uploaded a rev18 that:
- Incorporates all the su
Hi,
Thanks Susan for the review and comments below. Will let you know once
these have been incorporated into the document (hopefully, in the next
couple of days).
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 8:48 AM Susan Hares wrote:
> BESS WG, BESS chairs, and authors:
>
>
>
> This is a requested
>installation, the presumption is that discarding it is unsafe unless
>
>careful analysis proves otherwise. The analysis should take into
>
>account the tradeoff between preserving connectivity and potential
>
>side effects.
>
>
>
>
>
> Chee
Hi Susan,
Thanks for the reminder. Changes to reference RFC7606 were sitting in my
local as the tool was locked at the time.
Could you please check rev24?
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 2:06 AM Susan Hares wrote:
> Greetings:
>
>
>
> As I mentioned in the BESS meeting chat at IETF-121
the
> processing pipeline.
>
> G/
>
> From: Neeraj Malhotra
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2024 1:03 AM
> To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia)
> Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobil...@ietf.org; BESS
> Subject: Re: [bess] [Shepherding AD review] review of
> draft-
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the review and comments. Have uploaded rev19 to address comments
received from you and other reviewers.
Please see inline for details.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 8:12 AM Robert Sparks via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review result: Has Ni
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the review and comments. Have uploaded rev19 to address comments
received from you and other reviewers.
Please see inline for details.
> I am having trouble phasing the first sentence of the Abstract. The text
> says:
>
>This document specifies extensions to Ethernet VPN
Hi Stewart,
Thanks for the review and comments. Have uploaded rev19 to address comments
received from you and other reviewers.
Please see inline for details.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 8:59 AM Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Rea
Hi Susan,
Thanks for the review and comments. Have uploaded rev19 to address comments
received from you and other reviewers.
Please see inline for details.
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 8:17 AM Susan Hares via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Susan Hares
> Review result: Not Ready
>
Hi Erik,
Thanks for the review and comments. Have uploaded rev19 to address comments
received from you and other reviewers.
Please see inline for details.
> ### __general__
>
> * Is "ARP learning" throughout specifically ARP-only, or can it be read as
> "ARP/ND learning"? If the latter, shou
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the review and comments. Have uploaded rev19 to address comments
received from you and other reviewers.
Please see inline for details.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 10:36 AM Brian Haberman via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Brian Haberman
> Review result: Read
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the review and comments. Have uploaded rev19 to address comments
received from you and other reviewers.
Please see inline for details.
## DISCUSS (blocking)
>
> As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
> DISCUSS ballot is just a request to have
Hi John,
Many thanks for a comprehensive review and comments. I have just uploaded
rev21 to address all (except one) of the comments.
Please see inline for details.
--
> DISCUSS:
> ---
;
> See below for EV> (and I have elided the text for agreed upon points)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Neeraj Malhotra
> *Date: *Tuesday, 3 December 2024 at 02:51
> *To: *Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
> *Cc: *The IESG ,
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobil...@i
Thanks. However, you did not address my comment about ‘EVPN IRB’ and
> ‘EVPN-IRB’ terms. Are they the same thing or somehow different? If not, can
> you pick one and use it throughout the document.
>
> Jim
>
> From: Neeraj Malhotra
> Date: Monday, December 2, 2024 at 8:
Hi Jim,
Apologies, I missed responding to the EVPN-IRB / EVPN IRB comment below.
Yes, they are the same. I did fix this in rev19 to use EVPN-IRB
consistently at all places.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Dec 2, 2024, at 5:51 PM, Neeraj Malhotra wrote:
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the review and comments. Have
Hi,
support adoption.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 7:57 AM wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This email begins a two-week WG adoption and IPR poll for
> draft-sr-bess-evpn-vpws-gateway-06 (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sr-bess-evpn-vpws-gateway/).
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and
Hi,
Support adoption. L2 FRR and this draft is a much needed enhancement to the
ESI Multihoming solution.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 2:15 AM Matthew Bocci (Nokia) wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> This email begins a two-week WG adoption poll for
> draft-burdet-bess-evpn-fast-reroute-09
>
Hi,
Support adoption.
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 12:52 AM wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> This email begins a two-week WG adoption poll for
> draft-sajassi-bess-rfc8317bis-04
> [1].
>
> Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group
> list.
>
>
>
> We are also pol
Hi Mankamana,
I would like to request five minute slot to present updates to:
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb. Presenter: Neeraj
Thanks,
Neeraj
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 5:12 PM Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) wrote:
> All,
>
> Please send me slot request for IETF 123. Please make sure reply to sam
fically related to link BW attribute definition (please see
attached thread).
Could you please put on your agenda for next week's meeting to poll the WG that
there are no further concerns?
Thanks,
Neeraj
--- Begin Message ---
-- Forwarded message -----
From: Neeraj Malhotr
Hi Saumya,
Thanks for your comments/questions. Will respond by end of this week.
Thanks,
Neeraj
From: "Dikshit, Saumya"
Date: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 12:25 AM
To: "Dikshit, Saumya" ,
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobil...@ietf.org"
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" , "bess@ietf.org"
Sub
Hi Saumya,
Apologies for the delay, and many thanks for some good comments and questions.
Please see answers inline:
Hello Authors of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility:
I have following queries and comments about this draft
“draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding”.
Please help
Hi Saumya,
Thanks for the nudge 😊 Please see inline below with [NM2],
Section
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-05#section-8.8
“Following a host move from PE1 to PE2, the host's MAC is
discovered at PE2 as a local MAC via a data f
Hi Martin,
Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB
(draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility)
Speaker: Neeraj Malhotra
10 minutes
Thanks,
Neeraj
> On Jun 21, 2017, at 1:33 AM, Martin Vigoureux
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> it is time we start building the BESS WG agenda
Hi Donald,
Many thanks for a detailed review and input. Much appreciated.
Will get back with document updates and clarifications within a week.
Thanks,
Neeraj
From: Donald Eastlake
Date: Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:18 PM
To: bess-cha...@ietf.org ,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility
Hi Donald,
Many thanks for the details review and comments. I have published version 11 of
the document that incorporates all of your comments. Please also see inline
below for some additional clarifications.
This document repeatedly says that it may be considered a clarification of RFC
7432
forward.
Thanks,
Neeraj
From: Neeraj Malhotra (nmalhotr)
Date: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:23 PM
To: Donald Eastlake , bess-cha...@ietf.org
, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility@ietf.org
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org , BESS
Subject: Re: RtgDir Early review:
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended
To: Neeraj Malhotra (nmalhotr)
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org ,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility@ietf.org
, rtg-...@ietf.org
, BESS
Subject: Re: RtgDir Early review:
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-10.txt
Hi Neeraj,
Sorry for the delay in responding.
Generally my comments
Hi Donald,
Great, many thanks.
Neeraj
From: Donald Eastlake
Date: Monday, August 21, 2023 at 6:39 PM
To: Neeraj Malhotra (nmalhotr)
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org ,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility@ietf.org
, rtg-...@ietf.org
, BESS
Subject: Re: RtgDir Early review:
draft-ietf
Hi,
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR.
Also, wanted to re-confirm that all comments during and since the last WGLC
(including from RtgDir early review) have been addressed in the latest version.
I am aware of at least two implementations across Cisco and Arrcus.
Thanks,
Neeraj
From: slit
Hi Stephane,
Many thanks for the detailed review and comments. Have updated the document
addressing all of the comments below.
Specifically regarding the issue of referencing rfc7432 or rfc7432bis, I have
modified the reference to be on rfc7432 since existing 7432 is sufficient as a
reference
nks,
Neeraj
From: slitkows.i...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, October 16, 2023 at 8:14 AM
To: Neeraj Malhotra (nmalhotr) , Stephane Litkowski
(slitkows) ,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobil...@ietf.org
, bess@ietf.org
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-
Hi Jorge,
Many thanks for the review. Please see inline:
# Major comment: I believe section 5.1 is not correct:
“... GW MAC/IP MUST be advertised with a higher sequence number. ...”
And as per draft 7432bis:
“MAC Mobility extended community SHALL NOT be attached to routes which also
have De
Hi Dhruv,
Many thanks for a very detailed review and comments. I have just published
version 19 that significantly revises the document to incorporate all of your
comments as well as comments from Genart early review. Please see additional
clarifications inline below. Please do let me know in
Hi Mallory,
Many thanks for the review and comments. Rev 19 of the document (just
published) incorporates your comments below along with additional comments from
Rtgdir early review. Please do let me know if you see anything else outstanding.
Thanks,
Neeraj
From: Mallory Knodel via Datatracke
in this section (now section 10) to call out all requested allocations as
“suggested” values.
Please do let me know in case you see anything else missing.
Thanks,
Neeraj
From: Dhruv Dhody
Date: Monday, December 4, 2023 at 11:36 PM
To: Neeraj Malhotra (nmalhotr)
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org , bess
Hi,
Thanks Dhruv for the pointer (did not notice earlier that this was already
allocated). Fixed in rev21.
Thanks,
Neeraj
From: Dhruv Dhody
Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 8:12 PM
To: Neeraj Malhotra (nmalhotr)
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org , bess@ietf.org ,
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the note. Could you please check if the text added in section 7.7 is
sufficient? This adds a reference to evpn-ipvpn-interworking draft that already
has a section stating that attributes of type EVPN should NOT be preserved from
EVPN to non-EVPN networks. There is also text
Hi Jeff,
Perfect, many thanks.
Neeraj
> On Jul 24, 2025, at 5:14 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>
> Neeraj,
>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 02:24:33PM +0000, Neeraj Malhotra (nmalhotr) wrote:
>> Thanks for the note. Could you please check if the text added in section 7.7
>
81 matches
Mail list logo
