Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with Ingress Replication
John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Fri, 15 December 2017 19:27 UTC
Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 D7BB5126E3A for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:27:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 nYcRy7Yp3wtj for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:27:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7D50120227 for <bess@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:27:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108162.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id vBFJPFmZ032719; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:27:07 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=PBeEIVRbg7EeRuT7zcv5yhvF4CWJQDqTf5UqlPatuyw=; b=UJAL+FMp2rWA4Zbl0cty7laUQ288mVwYDnfSZtQFB61iAam/hws9PyFI9bWvJ/ju2qQi tq7sa2Yc9oNWZFkKzxHSWo+z6c7NtGCYu8aQyjdfzTOT1ncwQqoZeg9X4SMQvFXMqIsE xuU7KAOZZsf3WuyiopAqgkLmeyvUxK53SX/UgmToFCFGTB7p2kLGp3L6DV6iAjeMJbSy z8jYsoyC4de6BCMlDMh6LEBxAhlPJj0ybD+RmVTDUdOigPPsMBzVosgtIDlt8zBjh1oI Pj6yHFRvGDhxEcsyN8r1KW0pzl2hDS7NE2SMXBGxqRCJP0X5GmVg43g8+Ci8rSigQrbG FA==
Received: from nam02-cy1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02lp0050.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.50]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2evj2wrb4u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:27:07 -0800
Received: from MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.174.250.154) by MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.174.250.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.323.4; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:27:05 +0000
Received: from MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.174.250.154]) by MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.174.250.154]) with mapi id 15.20.0323.011; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:27:05 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with Ingress Replication
Thread-Index: AQHTdM5CvklvXirhBEykRTzwM3zAW6NC2FuAgAALcQCAAGgfAIAA7UEAgABFqtCAAAwKAIAAEuEAgAAbpoCAAADdgIAAEWAA
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:27:05 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR05MB355104DE9054A0A4430372C2C70B0@MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAO367rVvmv4kyFbS8C=WEyZpXZZQUgLsFX1gscy49UNU2_pJvQ@mail.gmail.com> <1513258777.30252.11.camel@orange.com> <CAO367rWCvS2fOD43agch0Mpu1pOfoXYHkptJPfccJsPHc+vzZQ@mail.gmail.com> <AT5PR8401MB0353B2B69B6F8D292FFB268BF60A0@AT5PR8401MB0353.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1513334544.6588.9.camel@orange.com> <MWHPR05MB355144EB0007DE112C09F34BC70B0@MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <AT5PR8401MB035389AC482DEFA78909334FF60B0@AT5PR8401MB0353.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1513356144.6588.38.camel@orange.com> <37A2C852-9730-4944-8205-88ACE9112990@cisco.com> <5c71355d-d55d-d74b-73dc-dc924a756ec9@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <5c71355d-d55d-d74b-73dc-dc924a756ec9@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MWHPR05MB3551; 6:7+/VcSU8eAvqmwTsELGj0UcOkMx8seqBT3faz+4zWNKdMfrNTEoKR4/fplp5WOIohx4DGgOaFKPuYmqwN4QQ/5BXs+EUaTztc7KKpOCfwT270JI8oSDlTVBN8z5j+8dU71x32mR/yGo0srVFXdPYT99umtD0UIcDAmSTZlsKrjYPFijXl3OItpMzRDhazj+eatc84kUQBbCrT+Wkvl8dkKm5Bhnzf5WlJtLfSSr9z0pPPLUnzeGPreA5/y9K1ai0Sx3CspwdbKsujFXTHOtfleYib7XvGfvIE/3tejhdpST08MRr3K3BaWvNXftVJjEpfNTLCWcQYbQwDJF1x4TqqHr8Xct2SMsBa9alPdHYCiQ=; 5:UVs662K+Nd/wxskmfE/wycRpFgeurpqYQ6W3mNbpqtFngP3uUzijGh30jxhR6CeoONsgpYG938TOS/iyzFMtbSHsLjbTOVzlJZZdn2EDvLHk0bLqnkafUzQOqDo6JlV5jxPVPwYrHK8nUhTebPSTa67NV4jt81lY2D8Ta/18ieU=; 24:pRWrJASCkb0kVog0QZgyJ9goQTVj765vN15LWspUxA98V/rN7UoWiz9kDL/GUfAaEHA+HDTZ8xgkOjbyngK8FZU1dfEn4rrYsJrKbWgbMjE=; 7:ADjCh3PkREKNn7tLhgK8eD6L5xX+9IpBlzI0typkMUvzstZcrKSGCJH6JwL7ZdtXs1nsVYwfv8cH6+oNo0EqBqOCxpv5jKHhxAMVZNH4GHqKAZbHKrStNywMzQYPW7lR5R7O6x6dfUqAnC9D7d4tbuS5OKrT0+pqUFhvstTzw/XBzmltRY1WJXHwIc+fB4To/AFDC5T3yiTE6d8FajLkzjJnPJrYsGtYUyJ7P8MSpfQQi/VHipBJr+UtwBWovgWY
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 395bfe57-d292-488d-bd17-08d543f1d391
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:(222181515654134); BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(48565401081)(4534020)(4602075)(4627115)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(5600026)(4604075)(2017052603307); SRVR:MWHPR05MB3551;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR05MB3551:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR05MB3551400351BF578F9266ED7FC70B0@MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(227479698468861)(10436049006162)(138986009662008)(18271650672692)(222181515654134);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040450)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3231023)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123560025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123558100)(20161123555025)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:MWHPR05MB3551; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000803101)(100110400095); SRVR:MWHPR05MB3551;
x-forefront-prvs: 05220145DE
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(376002)(51444003)(13464003)(24454002)(377424004)(199004)(189003)(8936002)(102836003)(8656006)(66066001)(305945005)(2950100002)(81166006)(8676002)(81156014)(76176011)(7736002)(5660300001)(74316002)(7696005)(99286004)(6436002)(33656002)(68736007)(3846002)(77096006)(6116002)(230783001)(229853002)(55016002)(59450400001)(9686003)(106356001)(2900100001)(105586002)(4001150100001)(6306002)(2501003)(97736004)(53936002)(5890100001)(25786009)(110136005)(3280700002)(86362001)(966005)(93886005)(316002)(478600001)(3660700001)(14454004)(6246003)(53546011)(575784001)(6506007)(2906002)(19627235001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR05MB3551; H:MWHPR05MB3551.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 395bfe57-d292-488d-bd17-08d543f1d391
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Dec 2017 19:27:05.7422 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR05MB3551
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-12-15_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1712150271
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/1T2ZZ4mZfHAOORPtItkbC4xpBdo>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with Ingress Replication
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 19:27:13 -0000
I don't think it adds anything to what is already in RFC 7432. Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 1:24 PM > To: bess@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with Ingress > Replication > > if the intent was to help people better understand the reasoning behind the > design, is it really best to remove it? > Wouldn't a rephrasing be more appropriate? > > -m > > Le 2017-12-15 à 19:21, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) a écrit : > > Hi Thomas, > > > > On 12/15/17, 8:42 AM, "BESS on behalf of Thomas Morin" <bess- > bounces@ietf.org on behalf of thomas.morin@orange.com> wrote: > > > > > > Here I would suggest to authors to consider purely removing this > > paragraph, not because it would be wrong or ambiguous (as said above, > I > > don't think it is), but because as far as I can tell it has never meant > > to specify anything not already implied by RFC7432, but was here only > > to help understand. > > > > OK, I will remove it in the next rev. > > > > Cheers, > > Ali > > > > Best, > > > > -Thomas > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] > > > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:52 AM > > > To: EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com <thomas.morin@orange.com>; > Fedyk, > > > Don <don.fedyk@hpe.com>; Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it> > > > Cc: bess@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with Ingress > > > Replication > > > > > > Thomas, > > > > > > I completely agree w/ your email, below. > > > > > > Yours Irrespectively, > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas > Morin > > > > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 5:42 AM > > > > To: Fedyk, Don <don.fedyk@hpe.com>; Marco Marzetti > <marco@lamehost. > > > > it> > > > > Cc: bess@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with > > > > Ingress > > > > Replication > > > > > > > > Hi Don, > > > > > > > > Fedyk, Don, 2017-12-14 20:33: > > > > > I think the gray area is that this draft talks about BUM traffic > > > > > and > > > > > ingress replication and then has a section on Multicast tunnels > > > > > which excludes ingress replication traffic from the tunnels. > > > > > > > > No, ingress replication is not excluded at all: > > > > > > > > The following tunnel types as defined in [RFC6514] can be used > > > > in > > > > the PMSI tunnel attribute for VXLAN/NVGRE: > > > > > > > > + 3 - PIM-SSM Tree > > > > + 4 - PIM-SM Tree > > > > + 5 - BIDIR-PIM Tree > > > > + 6 - Ingress Replication > > > > > > > > > If you are using point to point VXLAN/NVGRE tunnels then > > > > > ingress > > > > > replication is default [...] > > > > > > > > This formulation surprises me: that some implementations behave as > > > > you > > > > describe is possibly true (this seems to be the case of the > > > > implementation that triggered this discussion), but I don't know > > > > about > > > > any text in the specs we are discussing that would imply such a > > > > 'default'. > > > > > > > > You might have implementations that in the absence of any local > > > > configuration for an EVPN instance on which type of tunnel to use > > > > for > > > > BUM, will default to ingress replication: this is fine, out of the > > > > scope of what is specified for interop, and not breaking other > > > > implementations (as long, of course, that what is chosen locally > > > > is > > > > then advertised as expected in a PMSI Tunnel Attribute). > > > > > > > > > > > > > but IMET is being used to identify the NVE IP. I read RFC7432 > > > > > and > > > > > RFC6514 in this area and thought that the PMSI attribute MUST be > > > > > set > > > > > when there is an Inclusive Multicast Ethernet tag IMET. > > > > > > > > Yes! (the text of RFC7432 quoted by Ali reminds us that) > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can see two possible fixes: > > > > > - Specify that the PMSI attribute MUST be set if there > > > > > is an > > > > > IMET route and specify correct attribute. > > > > > > > > Given the content of RFC7432 and the fact that this is a normative > > > > ref > > > > of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay, I think that we don't need to > > > > repeat > > > > this MUST in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay. That is, unless we > > > > explicitly identify an ambiguous piece of text. > > > > > > > > > - Allow that ingress replication is default when PMSI is > > > > > absent but accept PMSI that specifies ingress replication. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we should do that. It would overnight make non- > > > > compliant > > > > pre- standard implementation of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay, > > > > without > > > > a rationale to do so except coping with an implementation that > > > > assumed a bit too much. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > -Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marco > > > > > Marzetti > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 9:21 AM > > > > > To: Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange.com> > > > > > Cc: bess@ietf.org > > > > > Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with > > > > > Ingress Replication > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > I have encountered an implementation that is not attaching any > > > > > PMSI > > > > > to the IMET. > > > > > The authors think they don't really need it because they only > > > > > support Ingress Replication. > > > > > Such behavior breaks interoperability with other implementations > > > > > that are dropping the NLRI if PMSI is not attached. > > > > > > > > > > So i looked at draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 and noticed that > > > > > there's no clear indication of what the proper behavior is. > > > > > As said i assumed i had to look at RFC7432 and RFC6514 (and i > > > > > did > > > > > it), but i wasn't 100% sure and i preferred to ask. > > > > > > > > > > Onestly you already made my day by confirming what i thought. > > > > > My suggestion was to make things more clear, but i admit that it > > > > > could look redundant. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Morin > > > > > > > > <thomas.morin@orange.co > > > > > m> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Marco, > > > > > > > > > > > > Marco Marzetti, 2017-12-14 12:25: > > > > > > > I am writing this email asking you to clarify what's the > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested > > > > > > > behavior when PMSI Tunnel Type is set to "Ingress > > > > > > > Replication" > > > > > > > > > > > > (type > > > > > > > 6) as draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 only suggests what to > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > multicast tunnel trees. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the originating PE should conform with RFC6514 and > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC7432 > > > > > > > (from which you've taken inspiration) and always (RFC2119 > > > > > > > MUST) > > > > > > > attach PMSI Tunnel attribute with the Tunnel Type set to > > > > > > > Ingress > > > > > > > Replication and Tunnel Identifier set to a routable address > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > the PE > > > > > > > itself (more specifically NVE's IP address). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that correct? > > > > > > > In that case i suggest to add the following line at the end > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > Section 9. > > > > > > > """ > > > > > > > For Ingress Replication the PE should follow what's stated in > > > > > > > > > > > > RFC6514 > > > > > > > Section 5 . > > > > > > > """ > > > > > > > > > > > > The text of section 9 lists "Ingress Replication" in the list > > > > > > of > > > > > > tunnel types that can be used. My understanding is that, in > > > > > > the > > > > > > absence of anything being specifically said for Ingress > > > > > > Replication, an implementation should follow what is said in > > > > > > RFC7432 and RFC6514. > > > > > > (What > > > > > > other specs could it follow to implement this supported type ? > > > > > > RFC7432 > > > > > > and RFC6514 are more than an inspiration here, these are specs > > > > > > that the document refers to explicitly) > > > > > > > > > > > > So I'm not sure that it is useful or needed to add text. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you perhaps expand on why the current text would possibly > > > > > > be > > > > > > ambiguous, misleading or incomplete...? > > > > > > > > > > > > -Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Marco > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > BESS mailing list > > > > BESS@ietf.org > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > > > > > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bess&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Sc > > > > bfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH- > > > > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=tHiUTn9_QXrhs3cw- > > > > Dn9_qwR3VK2xWv72DcpoOfR_SI&s=VxylPoVhzXC58hBsqToxzhUK6- > 3kfy- > > > > ktUi7A9KZDcs&e= > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BESS mailing list > > BESS@ietf.org > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail > > man_listinfo_bess&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzo > > CI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=1x8aFOvk_RP03fyq3IB > > pZwBtJxjqUj4Q_SUqY-J3hms&s=uWbEHvqg7t78XI- > MNC1dqHKsE6YtdoeSGy9gdxdSQq8 > > &e= > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BESS mailing list > > BESS@ietf.org > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail > > man_listinfo_bess&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzo > > CI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=1x8aFOvk_RP03fyq3IB > > pZwBtJxjqUj4Q_SUqY-J3hms&s=uWbEHvqg7t78XI- > MNC1dqHKsE6YtdoeSGy9gdxdSQq8 > > &e= > > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bess&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6S > cbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH- > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=1x8aFOvk_RP03fyq3IBpZwBtJxjqUj4Q_SUqY- > J3hms&s=uWbEHvqg7t78XI-MNC1dqHKsE6YtdoeSGy9gdxdSQq8&e=
- [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with … Marco Marzetti
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Thomas Morin
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Marco Marzetti
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Fedyk, Don
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Thomas Morin
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Marco Marzetti
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… John E Drake
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Fedyk, Don
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Thomas Morin
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… John E Drake
- Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI w… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)