I do assume there is no chance of forwarding the packet. The reason for
specifying it is to be clear what the VTEP is expected to do in that
case. (Which does mean the text has marginal, but non-zero value.)
Yours,
Joel
On 10/31/2019 12:33 PM, Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
What is the definition of m
Thank you, Joel and Jeff.
I'll upload the working version shortly. I hope that updates will address
all comments and concerns shared on several threads by Anoop, Dinesh, Joel,
and many others. I greatly value and appreciate the time, expertise, and
consideration you've given to this work, and have
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection WG of the
IETF.
Title : BFD Encapsulated in Large Packets
Authors : Jeffrey Haas
Albert
Working Group,
This version attempts to roll up all discussion points to date. Your
further review is appreciated.
-- Jeff and Albert
- Forwarded message from internet-dra...@ietf.org -
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 08:46:00 -0700
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: r
Thanks Jeff and Albert. I will go through the various discussion points and
will review the latest rev.
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2019-11-01, 11:49 AM, "Rtg-bfd on behalf of Jeffrey Haas"
wrote:
Working Group,
This version attempts to roll up all discussion points to date. Your
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection WG of the
IETF.
Title : BFD for VXLAN
Authors : Santosh Pallagatti
Sudarsan Paragiri
Dear All,
the new version includes updates resulting from the discussions of Joel's
comments in the RtrDir review of BFD over VXLAN draft, comments from Anoop,
and Dinesh. On behalf of editors, thank you for your constructive comments
and for sharing your expertise, all much appreciated.
I hope we'
Working Group,
A session request had gone in for IETF 106 to accommodate the need for a
possible session. The agenda, to this point, had been left as an open
question primarily to accommodate need to close on lingering questions in
active work. In particular, this was for two items:
- BFD for v
Hi Jeff, et al.,
I think that it will be of interest to the group to get an update on the
draft-mirmin-bfd-extended. We've added details on the use of the Padding
TLV.
Also, would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the status
of draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand at the meeting.
Regards,
Greg
On Fri
Hi Greg,
A few comments.
The draft has nits, specifically around the way the IPv6 address is written.
In section 4:
BFD packet MUST be encapsulated ->
BFD packets MUST be encapsulated
>>>
Destination MAC: This MUST NOT be of one of tenant's MAC
addresses. The destination MAC addre
10 matches
Mail list logo
