I too support the progress of this document.
-Rishabh
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:49 AM Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
wrote:
>
> Folks
>
>
>
> I have only seen a few responses to this WG last call. I am therefore going
> to extend it until Friday 4th October.
>
>
>
> If you haven’t done so, please
Support.
Thanks,
Rishabh
On Mon, 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 also
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:23 AM Rishabh Parekh (riparekh) wrote:
> As a co-author, I support adoption of this draft. It enables overlay
> MVPN/EVPN services over SR P2MP construct defined in drafts now adopted by
> SPRING and PIM WG.
>
>
>
> I am now aware of any relevant I
I support publication of this draft as standards track RFC.
Thanks,
-Rishabh
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 7:53 AM wrote:
> This email starts a two-week working group last call for
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-04
> [1]
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and send any comments to the BES
WG,
This draft was revised earlier to make clear that the ambiguity
described in Section 2.1 applies only to customer SSM groups. However,
one of the preventive policies (Section 2.3.2) to avoid this
ambiguity, "Single C-group per (C-*,C-G) P-tunnel" policy, was carried
forward from an earlier rev
We recently published rev 06 of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp/. The
authors believe the work is finished on this document and it should be put
on the WGLC queue.
Thanks,
-Rishabh
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
ht
allocation. Just my advice based on unfortunate things that I have seen
> happen in the past!
>
> Best regards
> Jon
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 at 16:18, Rishabh Parekh (riparekh) <
> ripar...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan,
>> We will fix the NITS in next
Paul,
We will address the issues and Nits in the next revision.
Thanks,
Rishabh.
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 12:32 PM Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IE
I support this draft as an author. I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR
for this document.
Thanks,
Rishabh
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 9:51 AM wrote:
> Hello Working Group,
>
>
>
> This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-
Cisco has an implementation of this draft.
Rishabh.
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 9:52 AM wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
>
>
> Besides the WGLC, we are also polling for any existing implementation of
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp.
>
>
>
> Please respond to this thread, if you are aware of any implementation
Likely the PIM draft needs to be updated too.
>
>
>
> Brgds,
>
>
>
> Stephane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Rishabh Parekh
> *Sent:* Friday, June 27, 2025 6:55 PM
> *To:* Stephane Litkowski (slitkows)
> *Cc:* draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p..
Stephane,
PIM and BESS WG drafts have been updated with suggested change from "PCE"
to "controller".
-Rishabh
On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 10:42 AM Rishabh Parekh wrote:
> Stephane,
> RFC 9524, the base for both the PIM and BESS WG drafts, only uses the term
> "PCE&
s.
-Rishabh
On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 8:33 AM Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <
slitk...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Thanks Rishabh.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Rishabh Parekh
> *Sent:* Monday, July 7, 2025 4:48 PM
> *To:* slitkows.i...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* Stephane Litkowski (slitko
Stephane,
Inline @ [RP]
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:01 AM Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) wrote:
> Hi authors,
>
>
>
> Please find below my chair/shepherd’s review of
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp.
>
>
>
>
>
> Introduction:
>
>
>
>- “A SR P2MP tree is defined by a SR P2MP Policy and insta
As a co-author, I support adoption of this draft. It enables overlay MVPN/EVPN
services over SR P2MP construct defined in drafts now adopted by SPRING and PIM
WG.
I am now aware of any relevant IPR applicable to this document.
-Rishabh
From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
Sent: Monday, November
Jonathan,
We will fix the NITS in next revision.
We have already obtained early IANA allocations for the "SR-MPLS P2MP Tree".
For "SRv6 P2MP Tree", the document just proposes a value.If you prefer, I can
change the column to "Proposed Value" in "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors" table for
End.DTMC4/6.
16 matches
Mail list logo
