Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 04 April 2019 23:05 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF361200CE; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SYZITIzECwRp; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FC32120090; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id a6so2992566lfl.5; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 16:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NM5jXCWVT3WWQJjeTt05C6nw2p0Ayg0YobTfhKYEzYM=; b=SoAGQ24sTqFqPaR4WG8+hohnydyvVKllm2Aj6K8BmodEGXPYKwpssHAVNnrdi1XSxk 0qBYOCNjKDVQFdlxQCy+ttKlCb+GTiAu8LcJ1xXw7l49BvKVB+F9jD0UEtIY0QcCM4AD 5AjohK4sICQY+u0rmoJjIjF3dzQ5IwnrXaSxtv/bs8eEATJ1CX8u/92B6ANOknfaXRqt iwRd7/PCy7CvQB5kAB4h0zMQDYOb8BD7Q1yGBRDeLhAMrI4tWp1xcugyLH8d5Em5VB3O GNShrqoVlGPHnuZlzR9fyCHrUhMP4X+ZA8S8gRFpeeEl48tU0F3MjQzXynIrPbGn+VAg asdA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NM5jXCWVT3WWQJjeTt05C6nw2p0Ayg0YobTfhKYEzYM=; b=fMAZKRUdR9e0mnlNDxNIvb5gX5GkN1NgnBOGtGrKMFHwm+lx70UZSs0SqbbI9ivUYg SEQU1A3tqY/3TuqC0JBebcaN78EZaOVtM9FhDNFgiXqqEeu7h/30G7sSfxoDo5p7s1vW KBkE1UwjptsYN1bMW94Eqj+UmPmXI9nY7w+To1PuV29KZ3G+HPRvYygGfixJaAc6fkrQ E7mVmlfdHaS5lD1RDn+HPkuUP6rNsDzN0e56iJ3ZIBAVecD0Je65JPeDxxk0z2UB34q0 BgfanRNpSekbx+qqBSk1DVc3Idh2xnwd+QIq/egMT16zxMo2KiHQH1C0oyamze1+Fz66 8Qlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX8phjwKid3LSole+vQgyhATpX7TjXgH4CGM29Z9bpDYypG7BU9 8WuxfXQyOEVMhrJr0/ndQBz+VHHbvKBi6iXKqqU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzc14jtQujJekAw9DJjtkb2ujnnmYUaOjM/cAR0KjVmnRCkllfYkZ2kT2oy2j2bXIRDPP+quXJwubMu5sChedc=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:4b14:: with SMTP id y20mr4465321lfa.36.1554419095342; Thu, 04 Apr 2019 16:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <26502_1542873261_5BF660AD_26502_47_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B7752E9@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BL0PR05MB5025A934922FDDC316AFD2E4D4AC0@BL0PR05MB5025.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+RyBmXcu3b9dObX=G9vyHNJtEuJ4wWqMtQXvxCNxgNOSCsmWw@mail.gmail.com> <CO2PR05MB24550CC9932A560B1DC7B19BD44B0@CO2PR05MB2455.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CO2PR05MB24550CC9932A560B1DC7B19BD44B0@CO2PR05MB2455.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 16:04:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmV6oigz+ODY9C6QEqkDQY1X+x=yDpWqPoiODyyqVeTwHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
Cc: "EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>, Robert Kebler <rkebler@juniper.net>, "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="00000000000002be6a0585bc66a9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/1Jd7Oqxo9pEjslvxxkEVheMxiPw>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 23:05:08 -0000
Hi Jeffrey, many thanks to you and Sandy for taking the time to review the remaining questions in Prague. Attached please find the updated version -06 and its diff to highlight the latest changes. Regards, Greg On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:04 AM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net> wrote: > Thomas, Bob, > > > > Some questions below for you. Some old, and some new. > > > > Greg, > > > > Sorry for the late response. > > Please see zzh> below. I trimmed some points that we agree on. > > > > *From:* Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 5, 2018 1:38 PM > *To:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net> > *Cc:* EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com <thomas.morin@orange.com>; Robert > Kebler <rkebler@juniper.net>; bess-chairs@ietf.org; BESS <bess@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover > > > > Hi Jeffrey, > > thank you for the review, detailed questions and helpful comments. Please > find my notes, answers in-line tagged GIM>>. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:14 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang < > zzhang@juniper.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have the following questions/comments: > > > > The procedure described here is an OPTIONAL procedure that consists > > of having a downstream PE take into account the status of P-tunnels > > rooted at each possible upstream PEs, for including or not including > > each given PE in the list of candidate UMHs for a given (C-S,C-G) > > state. The result is that, if a P-tunnel is "down" (see > > Section 3.1), the PE that is the root of the P-tunnel will not be > > considered for UMH selection, which will result in the downstream PE > > to failover to the upstream PE which is next in the list of > > candidates. > > > > Is it possible that a p2mp tunnel is considered up by some leaves but down > by some other leaves, leaving to them choosing different UMH? In that case, > procedures described in Section 9.1.1 ("Discarding Packets from Wrong PE") > of RFC 6513 must be used. I see that this is actually pointed out later in > section 6 – good to have a pointer to it right here. > > GIM>> Would the following new text that follows the quoted text address > your concern: > > NEW TEXT: > > If rules to determine the state of the P-tunnel are not > > consistent across all PEs, then some may arrive at a different > > conclusion regarding the state of the tunnel, In such a scenario, > > procedures described in Section 9.1.1 of [RFC 6513] MUST be used > > GIM>> Accepted > > Zzh> It’s not that the “rules … are not consistent”. It’s that by nature > some PEs may think the tunnel is down while the others may think the tunnel > is still up (because they’re on different tunnel branches), even when they > follow the same rules. Traffic duplication in this case is also only with > inclusive tunnels – so how about the following? > > > > Because all PEs may arrive at a different > > conclusion regarding the state of the tunnel, > > procedures described in Section 9.1.1 of [RFC 6513] MUST be used > > when using inclusive tunnels. > > > > Additionally, the text in section 3 seems to be more biased on Single > Forwarder Election choosing the UMH with the highest IP address. Section 5 > of RFC6513 also describes two other options, hashing or based on “installed > UMH route” (aka unicast-based). It is not clear how the text in this > document applies to hashing based selection, and I don’t see how the text > applies to unicast-based selection. Some rewording/clarification are needed > here. > > GIM>> How would the use of an alternative UMH selection algorithm change > documented use of p2mp BFD? Do you think that if the Upstream PE selected > using, for example, hashing then defined use of BGP-BFD and p2mp BFD itself > no longer applicable? > > > > Zzh> It’s not that the alternative UMH selection algorithm change > documented use of p2mp BFD. It’s the other way around – tunnel state > changes the selection result. I guess hashing can still be used (this > document only controls what goes into the candidate pool). For unicast > based selection I thought it’d no longer work, but then I noticed the > following: > > > > o second, the UMH candidates that advertise a PMSI bound to a tunnel > > that is "down" -- these will thus be used as a last resort to > > ensure a graceful fallback to the basic MVPN UMH selection > > procedures in the hypothetical case where a false negative would > > occur when determining the status of all tunnels > > > > Zzh> So this should still work, although Ideally, the PE advertising the > next best route should be considered before going to the last resort (of > using the PE advertising the best route but whose tunnel is down). > > > > For P-tunnels of type P2MP MPLS-TE, the status of the P-tunnel is > > considered up if one or more of the P2MP RSVP-TE LSPs, identified by > > the P-tunnel Attribute, are in Up state. > > > > Why is “one or more of …” used in the above text? > > GIM>> Clariy "to the same PE" > GIM>> Would s/one or more of/at least one of/ address your concern? > > > > Zzh> Still confused. From the tunnel head, indeed it could send setup > multiple (sub-)LSPs, one for each leaf. From the egress point of view, > there is only one LSP for an egress PE, right? > > > > If tracking of the P-tunnel by using a p2mp BFD session is to be > > enabled after the P-tunnel has been already signaled, the the > > procedure described above MUST be followed. > > > > What if the tracking is to be enabled before the P-tunnel has been > signaled? The text implies different behavior? > > GIM>> Not really, I guess. I think that the second sentence is important: > > Note that x-PMSI A-D Route MUST be re-sent with exactly the same > attributes as before and > > the BGP-BFD Attribute included. > > > > Zzh> In that case, how about changing the paragraph and the next one to > the following: > > > > If tracking of the P-tunnel by using a p2mp BFD session is > > enabled after the x-PMSI A-D route has been already advertised, > > the x-PMSI A-D > > Route MUST be re-sent with exactly the same attributes as before and > > the BGP-BFD Attribute included. > > > > If the x-PMSI A-D route is advertised with P-tunnel status tracked > using > > the p2mp BFD session and it is desired to stop tracking P-tunnel > > status using BFD, then: > > > GIM>> Agree > zzh> BTW, the same applies to 3.1.7 as well. > GIM>> Agree > > > When such a procedure is used, in the context where fast restoration > > mechanisms are used for the P-tunnels, leaf PEs should be configured > > to wait before updating the UMH, to let the P-tunnel restoration > > mechanism happen. A configurable timer MUST be provided for this > > purpose, and it is recommended to provide a reasonable default value > > for this timer. > > > > What does “such a procedure” refers to? > > GIM>> Would s/When such a procedure is used/In such a scenario/ > > > > Zzh> I looked at the surrounding (new) text: > > > > If the Downstream PE's P-tunnel is already up, its state being > > monitored by the p2mp BFD session, and the Downstream PE receives the > > new x-PMSI A-D Route without the BGP-BFD Attribute, the Downstream > > PE: > > > > o MUST accept the x-PMSI A-D Route; > > > > o MUST stop receiving BFD control packets for this p2mp BFD session; > > > > o SHOULD delete the p2mp BFD session associated with the P-tunnel; > > > > o SHOULD NOT switch the traffic to the Standby Upstream PE. > > > > In such a scenario, in the context where fast restoration mechanisms > > are used for the P-tunnels, leaf PEs should be configured to wait > > before updating the UMH, to let the P-tunnel restoration mechanism > > happen. > GIM>> Remove the last paragraph? > > > Zzh> Now I have the following two questions: > > Zzh> a) Should the “MUST stop receiving BFD control packets for this p2mp > BFD session” be removed? How would you “stop receiving BFD control > packets”? Isn’t it implied by the next bullet point already? > > Zzh> b) What does the last clause “to let the P-tunnel restoration > mechanism happen” mean? The scenario is that an x-PMSI route update is > received w/o the BGP-BFD attribute – where does the tunnel restoration come > from? > > > > 3.1.7. Per PE-CE link BFD Discriminator > > > > The following approach is defined for the fast failover in response > > to the detection of PE-CE link failures, in which UMH selection for a > > given C-multicast route takes into account the state of the BFD > > session associated with the state of the upstream PE-CE link. > > > > 3.1.7.1. Upstream PE Procedures > > > > For each protected PE-CE link, the upstream PE initiates a multipoint > > BFD session [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint] as MultipointHead toward > > downstream PEs. A downstream PE monitors the state of the p2mp > > session as MultipointTail and MAY interpret transition of the BFD > > session into Down state as the indication of the associated PE-CE > > link being down. > > > > Since the BFD packets are sent over the P2MP tunnel not the PE-CE link, my > understanding is that the BFD discriminator is still for the tunnel and not > tied to the PE-CE link; but different from the previous case, the root will > stop sending BFD messages when it detects the PE-CE link failure. As far as > the egress PEs are concerned, they don’t know if it is the tunnel failure > or PE-CE link failure. > > > > If my understanding is correct, the wording should be changed. > > GIM>> There are other than stopping transmission of BFD control packets > ways to distinguish two conditions for the egress PE. For example, the > MultipointHead MAY set the State to AdminDown and continue sending BFD > control packets. If and when PE-CE link restored to Up, the MultipointHead > can set the state to Up in the BFD control packet. > > > > … If the route to the > > src/RP changes such that the RPF interface is changed to be a new PE- > > CE interface, then the upstream PE will update the S-PMSI A-D route > > with included BGP-BFD Attribute so that value of the BFD > > Discriminator is associated with the new RPF link. > > > > If the RPF interface changes on the upstream PE, why should it update the > route to send a new discriminator? As long as there is a new RPF interface > couldn’t the upstream PE do nothing but start tracking the new RPF > interface? > > GIM>> I'll defer this one to Thomas and Rob. > > > > Zzh> I re-read section 3.1.6 and 3.1.7 and have more questions 😊 > > Zzh> 3.1.6 seems to be about tracking tunnel itself while 3.1.7 is about > tracking PE-CE interfaces. From an egress point of view, (how) does it know > if the discriminator is for the tunnel or for PE-CE interface 1 or PE-CE > interface 2? Does it even care? It seems to me that an egress PE would not > need to care. If so, why are there different procedures for 3.1.6/3.1.7 (at > least for the egress PE behavior)? Even for the upstream PE behavior, > shouldn’t 3.1.6.1 apply to 3.1.7 as well? > GIM>> Added the following text to the first paragraph of section 3.1.7: NEW TEXT: The mechanism to communicate the mapping between the PE-CE link and the associated BFD session is outside the scope of this document. > > > Regardless which way (the currently described way and my imagined way), > some text should be added to discuss how the downstream would not switch to > another upstream PE when the primary PE is just going through a RPF change. > > GIM>> Would appending the following text be acceptable to address your > concern: > > NEW TEXT: > > To avoid unwarranted switchover a downstream PE MUST gracefully handle > the > > updated S-PMSI A-D route and switch to the use of the associated BFD > > Discriminator value. > > > > 4. Standby C-multicast route > > > > The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site > > that contains C-S is connected to exactly two PEs. The procedures > > require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE > > selection, as specified in [RFC6513]. > > > > > > Why would it not work with more than two upstream PEs? > > Why is it limited to single forwarder selection? What about unicast based > selection? > > GIM>> Again, asking for Thomas and Rob to help. > > > > If at some later point the local PE determines that C-S is no longer > > reachable through the Primary Upstream PE, the Standby Upstream PE > > becomes the Upstream PE, and the local PE re-sends the C-multicast > > route with RT that identifies the Standby Upstream PE, except that > > now the route does not carry the Standby PE BGP Community (which > > results in replacing the old route with a new route, with the only > > difference between these routes being the presence/absence of the > > Standby PE BGP Community). > > > > Additionally the LOCAL_PREF should also change? > > GIM>> Like normative SHOULD? > > > > Zzh> I meant that there should also be text talking about changing > LOCAL_PREF. > GIM>> Added to the paragraph: NEW TEXT: Also, a LOCAL_PREF attribute MUST be set to zero. > 5. Hot leaf standby > > > > The mechanisms defined in sections Section 4 and Section 3 can be > > used together as follows. > > > > This section is a little confusing to me. It seems that it really should > be how a leaf should behave when hot root standby is used, not that there > is a “hot leaf” mode. A leaf is just a leaf, not a > cold/warm/hot/primary/standby leaf. > > GIM>> Would re-naming the section to "Use of Standby C-multicast Route" better > reflect the content of the section? > > > > Zzh> It seems to me that the title should really be changed to “Hot Root > Standby”. Bob/Thomas? > GIM>> Agree > > > Zzh> Thanks! > > Zzh> Jeffrey > > > > Thanks. > > > > Jeffrey > > > > *From:* BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * > stephane.litkowski@orange.com > *Sent:* Thursday, November 22, 2018 2:54 AM > *To:* bess@ietf.org > *Cc:* bess-chairs@ietf.org > *Subject:* [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover > > > > Hello Working Group, > > > > This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover-04 [1] > > > > This poll runs until *the 6th of December*. > > > > We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to > this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with > IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > > If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please > respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any > relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from > all the Authors and Contributors. > > > > Currently two IPRs have been disclosed against this Document. > > > > If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please > explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been > disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > > > > We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2]. > > > > Thank you, > > Stephane & Matthew > > > > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover/ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Dmvpn-2Dfast-2Dfailover_&d=DwMFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&m=21UeMvv2ofELpScacCIlRV64tml5G3zQ3NN5NqhC90s&s=ZKwzFkFZdTKGHJdgRZ6PExBQcl1Ck5CGjhXDxYQYvvI&e=> > > > > [2] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_bess_cG3X1tTqb-5FvPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw&d=DwMFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&m=21UeMvv2ofELpScacCIlRV64tml5G3zQ3NN5NqhC90s&s=fR1eK_EmnRha7QRf37WKaJmt1F5OLq7ynG7afcmPhM0&e=> > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > 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, > > 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 authorisation. > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > > Thank you. > >
- [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draf… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Thomas Morin
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Robert Kebler
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … stephane.litkowski
- Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for d… zhang.zheng
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for d… zhang.zheng
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for d… zhang.zheng
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for … Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang