[bess] 答复: 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN

Hi Wim,
It seems to be a solution. Another problem:
Current BGP flow spec for L2 VPN /L3 VPN relies on Rout Target for policy import/export. If using unified solution, RT can't overlap between different applications(L2VPN,L3VPN...). If using separating AFI/SAFI solution, no RT constraint issue.
Maybe there are other questions for unified solution, i would like to hear other expert's comments on your proposal.
Thanks
weiguo

________________________________________
发件人: BESS [bess-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
发送时间: 2014年11月14日 8:27
收件人: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS
抄送: IDR Chairs
主题: Re: [bess] 答复:  答复:  Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN

We define a new AFI/SAFI that accommodates all we have + include L2
extensions.
Operators that don’t need L2 extensions keep what they have.
Operators that need L2 extensions go to the new method or mix the new
method with the old methods per service type.

Make sense?

On 13/11/14 14:16, "Haoweiguo" <haoweiguo@huawei.com> wrote:

>How to achieve compatability with current existed flowspec[RFC5575]
>applications?
>Thanks
>weiguo
>
>________________________________________
>发件人: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
>发送时间: 2014年11月14日 8:14
>收件人: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS
>抄送: IDR Chairs
>主题: Re: 答复: [bess] Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
>
>If we define a new things I prefer to address the wider issue and include
>L2 in that.
>
>On 13/11/14 14:13, "Haoweiguo" <haoweiguo@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi Wim,
>>Allocating different AFI/SAFI(s) for each flow spec application is a
>>applicable solution. Theoretically, unified mechanism for all flowspec
>>can be designed, but it maybe a more harder work in IDR.
>>Thanks
>>weiguo
>>
>>________________________________________
>>发件人: BESS [bess-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
>>[wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
>>发送时间: 2014年11月14日 7:55
>>收件人: Thomas Morin; BESS
>>抄送: IDR Chairs
>>主题: Re: [bess] Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
>>
>>As I stated in the IDR meeting my observation is that we require to many
>>AFI/SAFI(s) for all flow spec functions. Flow spec in general is
>>providing
>>match criteria¹s with related actions. Given the proposal on Flowspec for
>>L2 is new we should look at the bigger picture.
>>In My view we need a mechanism in BGP to advertise Flowspec match
>>criteria¹s with related actions and they should cover L2/L3-IPv4/IPv6.
>>
>>On 13/11/14 13:44, "Thomas Morin" <thomas.morin@orange.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi WG,
>>>
>>>A heads up...
>>>
>>>These two drafts relate to BESS and thus may be of interest to us:
>>>- draft-hao-idr-flowspec-l2vpn
>>><http://tools.ietf.org/html?draft=draft-hao-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-01> (on
>>>idr agenda, being presented right now)
>>>- draft-hao-idr-flowspec-evpn
>>><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-evpn-00>
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>
>>>-Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>BESS mailing list
>>>BESS@ietf.org
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>BESS mailing list
>>BESS@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess