Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

[Zhuangshunwan <[e-mail]>]

+1

More popular deployments in data center is VXLAN/NVGRE, so the VXLAN/NVGRE and MPLS VPN network interconnecting is necessary. If all TOR/NVEs support MPLSoGRE/oUDP, Wim's solution also can be used, but currently it's not practical to require all TOR/NVEs to support MPLS/MPLS/UDPorGRE.

Vincent
________________________________________
From: Haoweiguo
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 14:21
To: Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge); UTTARO, JAMES; John E Drake; EXT - [e-mail]; Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

Jorge,
We all know that Wim's MPLS/MPLS/UDP solution works, but it's not the only choice. Wim's solution requires MPLSoGRE/UDP encap in data center, but many data centers only use VXLAN/NVGRE encapsulation for both north-south and east-west bound traffic, how to interconnect with outside MPLS VPN network for these data centers? So VXLAN/NVGRE and MPLS VPN network interworking is needed.
And for the interconnection solution, we suggest both no TOR/NVE hardware enhancement solution and future proof solution should be provided.
Thanks,
weiguo
________________________________________
From: BESS [[e-mail]] on behalf of Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge) [[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 3:31
To: UTTARO, JAMES; John E Drake; EXT - [e-mail]; Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc

IMHO if TOR chip vendors can confirm they are seriously looking at MPLS/MPLS/UDP, Wim’s suggestion makes all the sense since we know it works and scales.
My 2 cents.

Jorge



On 11/20/15, 9:51 AM, "BESS on behalf of UTTARO, JAMES" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>+1
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: BESS [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John E Drake
>Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 12:19 PM
>To: EXT - [e-mail]; Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); 
>[e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc
>
>Lucy,
>
>My apologies, I misunderstood.
>
>I think we have to accept the fact that we will have to deal with a multiplicity of different encapsulations in the data plane along a packet's e2e path and that we should take a more measured approach to deciding how to deal with this in a general and extensible way before accepting any solutions.
>
>Yours Irrespectively,
>
>John
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 12:04 PM
>> To: John E Drake; Lucy yong; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc
>>
>> 2015-11-20, John E Drake:
>> > That presupposes that the group likes either of the two proposed 
>> > solutions
>> in your draft.
>>
>> John, I think Lucy's "two solutions" was referring to 
>> draft-hao-bess-inter- nvo3-vpn-optionc solution and the 3-label 
>> Optionc MPLS/MPLS/UDP solution described by Wim.
>>
>> -Thomas
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: BESS [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lucy yong
>> >> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:49 AM
>> >> To: EXT - [e-mail]; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); 
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc
>> >>
>> >> Share my 2 cent.
>> >>
>> >> Cloud providers want to tunnel its customer traffic through DC (AS)BR.
>> >> Option C is a way to realize it. Both solutions summarized by 
>> >> Thomas have no change on WAN VPN side and seamlessly work with WAN 
>> >> VPN
>> option C.
>> >> However, to support either solution, DC has to do some enhancement 
>> >> on DC BR or ToR switch, etc, which dictates to different 
>> >> implementations within a DC. Option C pro and con remains 
>> >> regardless what implementation is used in a DC.
>> >>
>> >> Two solutions should not coexist in one DC (does not make a 
>> >> sense), but it does not matter if one DC operator prefers to use 
>> >> one solution and another DC prefers to use another solution. Since 
>> >> there are many cloud providers today, it is worth for the WG to 
>> >> document both solutions and point out the implementation 
>> >> requirements on impacted components. Then, up to vendors and 
>> >> operators to select a solution for
>> their DC.
>> >>
>> >> It does not make a sense for us to vote which solution is better 
>> >> here because a better solution for a DC depends on many factors.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Lucy
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: BESS [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 3:02 AM
>> >> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim); [e-mail]
>> >> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc
>> >>
>> >> 2015-11-19, Henderickx, Wim (Wim):
>> >>> WH> I vote for a an evolution of switches/TORs that have proper
>> >>> support for this. I hope some HW vendors of TOR chips shime in, 
>> >>> but I am told the MPLS solution is possible in the next 
>> >>> generation chips they are working on.
>> >>
>> >> Well, it looks like the key questions are:
>> >> - when would ToR chips support MPLS/MPLS/UDP ?  (the generation 
>> >> that has been released recently but not present in most shipping 
>> >> ToRs yet, the next one ?)
>> >> - do we want an interim VXLAN-based solution ? (that will involve 
>> >> at best a performance penalty with existing chips, and at worse 
>> >> impossible to implement -- we haven't seen clear information in 
>> >> this
>> >> thread)
>> >>
>> >> -Thomas
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>> Zhuangshunwan  :
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Diego,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks for your comments. Pls see inline with [Vincent].
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Vincent
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *发件人:*BESS [mailto:[e-mail]] *代表 *Diego Garcia
>> >> del Rio
>> >>>>> *发送时间:*2015年11月18日14:25 *收件人:*[e-mail] *主题
>> >> :*Re: [bess]
>> >>>>> draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Some comments from my side, I think the draft makes quite a few 
>> >>>>> assumptions on specific implementation details that are way too 
>> >>>>> general to be considered widely available. Most of the TOR 
>> >>>>> devices today already pay a double-pass penalty when doing 
>> >>>>> routing of traffic in/out of vxlan-type tunnels. Only the 
>> >>>>> newest generation can route into tunnels without additional 
>> >>>>> passes. And are definitively limited in being able to arbitrary 
>> >>>>> select UDP ports on a per tunnel basis. In fact, most are even 
>> >>>>> limited at using more than one VNID per "service" of sorts. 
>> >>>>> [Vincent]: Yes, the new generation BCM chipset has already 
>> >>>>> supported VXLAN routing
>> without
>> >>>>> additional passes. For OVS/TOR, VXLAN encapsulation is more 
>> >>>>> popular than MPLSoGRE/UDP, and has better performance. The 
>> >>>>> IP-addressed based implementation which would, I assume, imply 
>> >>>>> assigning one or more CIDRs to a loopback interface on the 
>> >>>>> ASBR-d is also quite arbitrary and does not seem like a 
>> >>>>> technically "clean" solution. (besides burning tons of IPs). As 
>> >>>>> a side-note, most PE-grade routers i've worked with were quite 
>> >>>>> limited in terms of IP addresses used for tunnel termination 
>> >>>>> and it wasn't that just a simple pool can be used. [Vincent]: I 
>> >>>>> think the larger VTEP IP address range on ASBR-d has no limitations.
>> >>>>> For the hardware on ASBR-d, it has capability to terminate 
>> >>>>> multiple VXLAN tunnels with arbitrary destination VTEP IP 
>> >>>>> addresses. Wim's mentions on cases where the Application 
>> >>>>> itself, hosted in a datacenter, would be part of the option-C 
>> >>>>> interconnect, was dismissed without much discussion so far, 
>> >>>>> while, if we look in detail at the type of users which will 
>> >>>>> even consider a complex topology like model-C its most likely 
>> >>>>> users and operators very familiar with MPLS VPNs in the WAN. 
>> >>>>> Those type of operators will most likely be very interested in 
>> >>>>> deploying MPLS or WAN-grade applications (i.e., virtual-routers 
>> >>>>> or other
>> >>>>> VNFs) in the DC and thus its highly likely that the 
>> >>>>> interconnect would not terminate at the NVE itself but rather 
>> >>>>> the TS (the virtual machine). Also, the use of UDP ports at 
>> >>>>> random would imply quite complex logic on the ASBR-d IMHO. Im 
>> >>>>> not saying its impossible, but since the received packet now 
>> >>>>> not only has to be received on a random (though locally chosen) 
>> >>>>> UDP port and this information preserved in the pipeline to be 
>> >>>>> able to do the double-tunnel-stitching, it sounds quite 
>> >>>>> complex. I am sure someone in the list will mention this has 
>> >>>>> already been implemented somewhere, and I won't argue with 
>> >>>>> that. And let's not even bring into account what this would do 
>> >>>>> to any DC middlebox that now has to look at vxlan over almost 
>> >>>>> any random port. We have to go back to the "is it a 4 or is it 
>> >>>>> a 6 in byte x" heuristics to try to guess whether the packet is 
>> >>>>> vxlan or just something entirely different running over IP. 
>> >>>>> [Vincent]: Using NP or multi-core CPU hardware technology, it 
>> >>>>> can be implemented although deeper packet inspection is needed 
>> >>>>> to perform UDP port and MPLS stitching. In general I feel the 
>> >>>>> proposed solution seems to be fitting of a specific use-case which is not really detailed
>> >>>>> in the draft and does not describe   a solution that would
>> >>>>> "elegantly" solve the issues at hand. It just feels like we're 
>> >>>>> using any available bit-space to stuff data into places that do 
>> >>>>> not necesarily belong. Yes, MPLS encapsulations on virtual 
>> >>>>> switches are not yet fully available, and there can be some 
>> >>>>> performance penalty on the TORs, but the solutions are much 
>> >>>>> cleaner from a control and data plane point of view. Maybe I'm 
>> >>>>> too utopic. [Vincent]: I think pure VXLAN solution has its 
>> >>>>> scenario, it's general rather than specific. We can't require 
>> >>>>> all OVS/NVEs support VXLAN + MPLSoGRE at the same time. Best 
>> >>>>> regards, Diego
>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>> ---
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> -------------
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>>>> The problem we are trying to solve is to reduce data center 
>> >>>>> GW/ASBR-d's forwarding table size, the motivation is same as 
>> >>>>> traditional MPLS VPN option-C. Currently, the most common 
>> >>>>> practise on ASBR-d is to terminate VXLAN encapsulation, look up 
>> >>>>> local routing table, and then perform MPLS encapsulation to the 
>> >>>>> WAN
>> network.
>> >>>>> ASBR-d needs to maintain all VM's MAC/IP. In Option-C method, 
>> >>>>> only transport layer information needed to be maintained at 
>> >>>>> GW/ASBR-d, the scalability will be greatly enhanced. Traditonal 
>> >>>>> Option-C is only for MPLS VPN network interworking, because 
>> >>>>> VXLAN is
>> becoming
>> >>>>> pervasive in data center, the solution in this draft was 
>> >>>>> proposed for the heterogeneous network interworking. The 
>> >>>>> advantage of this solution is that only VXLAN encapsulation is required for OVS/TOR.
>> >>>>> Unlike Wim's solution, east-west bound traffic uses VXLAN 
>> >>>>> encap, while north-south bound traffic uses MPLSoGRE/UDP encap. 
>> >>>>> There
>> are
>> >>>>> two solutions in this draft: 1. Using VXLAN tunnel destination 
>> >>>>> IP for stitching at ASBR-d. No data plane modification 
>> >>>>> requirements on OVS or TOR switches, only hardware changes on 
>> >>>>> ASBR-d. ASBR-d normally is router, it has capability to realize 
>> >>>>> the hardware changes. It will consume many IP addresses and the 
>> >>>>> IP pool for allocation needs to be configured on ASBR-d 
>> >>>>> beforehand. 2. Using VXLAN destination UDP port for stitching 
>> >>>>> at ASBR-d. Compared with solution 1, less IP address will be 
>> >>>>> consumed for allocation. If UDP port range is too large, we can combine with solution 1 and 2.
>> >>>>> In this solution, both data plane modification changes are 
>> >>>>> needed at OVS/TOR and ASBR-d. ASBR-d also has capability to 
>> >>>>> realize the hardware changes. For OVS, it also can realize the 
>> >>>>> data plane changes. For TOR switch, it normally can't realize this function.
>> >>>>> This solution mainly focuses on pure software based overlay 
>> >>>>> network, it has more scalability. In public cloud data center, 
>> >>>>> software based overlay network is the majority case. Whether 
>> >>>>> using solution 1 or 2 depends on the operators real envionment. 
>> >>>>> So I think our solution has no flaws, it works fine.
>> >>>>> Thanks, weiguo ________________________________ From: BESS 
>> >>>>> [[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>] on 
>> >>>>> behalf of John E Drake [[e-mail] 
>> >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 2:49 To: Henderickx, Wim
>> (Wim);
>> >>>>> EXT - [e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>> >> BESS
>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Hi, I 
>> >>>>> think Wim has conclusively demonstrated that this draft has 
>> >>>>> fatal flaws and I don’t support it.  I also agree with his 
>> >>>>> suggestion that we first figure out what problem we are trying 
>> >>>>> to solve before solving it. Yours Irrespectively, John From: 
>> >>>>> BESS [mailto:[e-mail] 
>> >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Henderickx, Wim 
>> >>>>> (Wim) Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015
>> >>>>> 12:49 PM To: EXT - [e-mail] 
>> >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>; BESS Subject: Re: [bess] 
>> >>>>> draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc — Snip — No, the spec as 
>> >>>>> it is can be implemented in its VXLAN variant with existing 
>> >>>>> vswitches (e.g. OVS allows to choose the VXLAN destination 
>> >>>>> port, ditto for the linux kernel stack). (ToR is certainly 
>> >>>>> another story, most of them not having a flexible enough VXLAN 
>> >>>>> dataplane nor support for any
>> >>>>> MPLS-over-IP.) WH> and how many ports simultaneously would they 
>> >>>>> support? For this to work every tenant needs a different VXLAN 
>> >>>>> UDP destination port/receive port. There might be SW elements 
>> >>>>> that could do some of this, but IETF defines solutions which 
>> >>>>> should be implemented across the board HW/SW/etc.
>> >>>>> Even if some SW switches can do this, the proposal will impose 
>> >>>>> so many issues in HW/data-plane engines that I cannot be behind 
>> >>>>> this solution. To make this work generically we will have to 
>> >>>>> make changes anyhow. Given this, we better do it in the right 
>> >>>>> way and guide the industry to a solution which does not imply 
>> >>>>> those
>> complexities.
>> >>>>> Otherwise we will stick with these specials forever with all 
>> >>>>> consequences (bugs, etc). - snip - From:
>> >>>>> "[e-mail]
>> >>>>>
>> >>
>> <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>> >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>" <[e-mail]
>> >>>>>
>> >>
>> <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>> >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>> Organization: Orange Date:
>> >>>>> Tuesday 17 November 2015 at 01:37 To: Wim Henderickx 
>> >>>>> <[e-mail]
>> >>>>> <mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-
>> >> lucent.com><mailto:wim.henderickx@alc
>> >>>>> atel-lucent.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>>>, BESS <[e-mail]
>> >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>> >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>> Subject: Re: [bess] 
>> >>>>> draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Hi Wim, WG, 2015-11-16, 
>> >>>>> Henderickx, Wim (Wim): 2015-11-13, Henderickx, Wim (Wim):
>> Thomas,
>> >> we
>> >>>>> can discuss forever and someone need to describe requirements, 
>> >>>>> but the current proposal I cannot agree to for the reasons explained.
>> >>>>> TM> Well, although discussing forever is certainly not the 
>> >>>>> TM> goal, the
>> >>>>> reasons for rejecting a proposal need to be thoroughly understood.
>> >>>>> WH> my point is what is the real driver for supporting a plain 
>> >>>>> WH> VXLAN
>> >>>>> data-plane here, the use cases I have seen in this txt is 
>> >>>>> always where an application behind a NVE/TOR is demanding 
>> >>>>> option c, but none of the NVE/TOR elements.
>> >>>>> My understanding is that the applications  are contexts where 
>> >>>>> overlays are present is when workloads (VMs or baremetal) need 
>> >>>>> to be interconnected with VPNs. In these contexts, there can be 
>> >>>>> reasons to want Option C to reduce the state on ASBRs. In these 
>> >>>>> context, its not the workload (VM or baremetal) that would 
>> >>>>> typically handle VRFs, but really the vswitch or ToR. WH2> can 
>> >>>>> it not
>> be all cases:
>> >>>>> TOR/vswitch/Application. I would make the solution flexible to 
>> >>>>> support all of these not? 2015-11-13, Henderickx, Wim (Wim): 
>> >>>>> TM> The right trade-off to make may in fact depend on whether 
>> >>>>> you
>> prefer:
>> >>>>> (a) a new dataplane stitching behavior on DC ASBRs (the 
>> >>>>> behavior specified in this draft) or
>> >>>>> (b) an evolution of the encaps on the vswitches and ToRs to 
>> >>>>> support MPLS/MPLS/(UDP or GRE) WH> b depends on the use case I 
>> >>>>> don't get what you mean by "b depends on the use case". WH> see
>> my
>> >>>>> above comment. If the real use case is an application behind 
>> >>>>> NVE/TOR requiring model C, than all the discussion on impact on 
>> >>>>> NVE/TOR is void. As such I want to have a discussion on the 
>> >>>>> real driver/requirement for option c interworking with an IP 
>> >>>>> based Fabric. Although I can agree than detailing requirements 
>> >>>>> can always help, I don't think one can assume a certain 
>> >>>>> application to dismiss the proposal. WH> for me the proposal is 
>> >>>>> not acceptable for the reasons explained: too much impact on 
>> >>>>> the data-planes I wrote the above based on the idea that the 
>> >>>>> encap used in MPLS/MPLS/(UDP or GRE), which hence has to be 
>> >>>>> supported on the
>> ToRs and vswitches.
>> >>>>> Another possibility would be 
>> >>>>> service-label/middle-label/Ethernet
>> >>>>> assuming an L2 adjacency between vswitches/ToRs and ASBRs, but 
>> >>>>> this certainly does not match your typical DC architecture. Or 
>> >>>>> perhaps had you something else in mind ? WH> see above. The 
>> >>>>> draft right now also requires changes in existing TOR/NVE so 
>> >>>>> for me all this discussion/debate is void. No, the spec as it 
>> >>>>> is can be implemented in its VXLAN variant with existing 
>> >>>>> vswitches (e.g. OVS allows to choose the VXLAN destination 
>> >>>>> port, ditto for the linux kernel stack). (ToR is certainly 
>> >>>>> another story, most of them not having a flexible enough VXLAN 
>> >>>>> dataplane nor support for any
>> >>>>> MPLS-over-IP.)
>> >>>>> WH> and how many ports simultaneously would they support? WH>
>> and
>> >>>>> depending on implementation you don’t need to change any of the 
>> >>>>> TOR/vswitches. Does this mean that for some implementations you 
>> >>>>> may not need to change any of the TOR/vswitches, but that for 
>> >>>>> some others you may ? WH> any proposal on the table requires 
>> >>>>> changes, so for me this is not a valid discussion See above, 
>> >>>>> the proposal in the draft does not necessarily need changes in 
>> >>>>> vswitches. Let me take a practical example : while I can quite 
>> >>>>> easily see how to implement the procedures in 
>> >>>>> draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc
>> >>>>> based on current vswitch implementations of VXLAN, the lack of 
>> >>>>> MPLS/MPLS/(UDP, GRE) support in commonplace vswitches seems to
>> >> me as
>> >>>>> making that alternate solution you suggest harder to implement.
>> >>>>> WH> I would disagree to this. Tell me which switch/TOR handles
>> >>>>> multiple UDP ports for VXLAN ? I mentioned _v_switches, and 
>> >>>>> many do support a variable destination port for VXLAN, which is 
>> >>>>> sufficient to implement what the draft proposes. -Thomas From:
>> >>>>> Thomas Morin <[e-mail]
>> >>>>>
>> >>
>> <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>> >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>> Organization: Orange Date:
>> >>>>> Friday 13 November 2015 at 09:57 To: Wim Henderickx 
>> >>>>> <[e-mail]
>> >>>>> <mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-
>> >> lucent.com><mailto:wim.henderickx@alc
>> >>>>> atel-lucent.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >> <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>> >>>>> Cc: "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>> >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>" <[e-mail] 
>> >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]
>> >>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>> Subject: Re: [bess] 
>> >>>>> draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc Hi Wim, I agree on the 
>> >>>>> analysis that this proposal is restricted to implementations 
>> >>>>> that supports the chosen encap with non-IANA ports (which may 
>> >>>>> be hard to achieve for instance on hardware implementations, as 
>> >>>>> you suggest), or to context where managing multiple IPs would 
>> >>>>> be operationally viable. However, it does not seem obvious to 
>> >>>>> me how the alternative you propose [relying on 3-label option C 
>> >>>>> with an
>> >>>>> MPLS/MPLS/(UDP|GRE) encap] addresses the issue of whether the
>> >> encap
>> >>>>> behavior is supported or not (e.g. your typical ToR chipset 
>> >>>>> possibly may not support this kind of encap,  and even 
>> >>>>> software-based switches may not be ready to support that today).
>> >>>>> My take is that having different options to adapt to various 
>> >>>>> implementations constraints we may have would have value. (+ 
>> >>>>> one question below on VXLAN...) -Thomas 2015-11-12, Henderickx, 
>> >>>>> Wim
>> >>>>> (Wim): On VXLAN/NVGRE, do you challenge the fact that they 
>> >>>>> would be used with a dummy MAC address that would be replaced 
>> >>>>> by the right MAC by a sender based on an ARP request when 
>> >>>>> needed ? Is the above the issue you had in mind about VXLAN and 
>> >>>>> NVGRE ? WH> yes I you don't mind me asking : why do you challenge that ?
>> >>>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> __________________________________________________________
>> >>
>> __________________________________________________________
>> >> _____
>> >>
>> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
>> >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre 
>> >> diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu 
>> >> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le 
>> >> detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques 
>> >> etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline 
>> >> toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
>> >> falsifie. Merci
>> >>
>> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
>> >> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should 
>> >> not be distributed, used or copied without authorization.
>> >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender 
>> >> and delete this message and its attachments.
>> >> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange shall not be 
>> >> liable if this message was modified, changed or falsified.
>> >> Thank you.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> BESS mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> BESS mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________
>> __________________________________________________________
>> _____
>>
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
>> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message 
>> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi 
>> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles 
>> d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si 
>> ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci
>>
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or 
>> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not 
>> be distributed, used or copied without authorization.
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender 
>> and delete this message and its attachments.
>> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange shall not be liable 
>> if this message was modified, changed or falsified.
>> Thank you.
>
>_______________________________________________
>BESS mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>_______________________________________________
>BESS mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess