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

["Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" <[e-mail]>]

As you said, Lucy, "that is my 2 cents. Anyone can share their opinion” :-)




On 11/20/15, 11:57 AM, "Lucy yong" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>IMHO: voting on this thread does not make a sense. Both solutions will work and scales.
>
>Lucy 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 1:32 PM
>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