Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment

"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <> Thu, 10 January 2019 06:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20AD13117F for <>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 22:17:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -19.052
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m21Y8fopJe8K for <>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 22:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FA6E13117E for <>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 22:17:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=33222; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1547101072; x=1548310672; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=2bhAS1BKTZvHI0gVqqHUKhAHveObkybjFaKJ8Cng6to=; b=NbIsaevePsHCgwe419ffmff5VWBwB1MyC9tDDKvrDPZluiYLRxYOUcuw l9YFNrkLqcH+gMxBiNcSRe6Ncrh19b0XAE0W59e4GILubUeoQZCkmJM7f CQeLE34SOmHXlm1auNA3WmNYEeg7lIA3XuQQmeNiSSj45mbGzZ0Kxf/GF M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,460,1539648000"; d="scan'208,217";a="493562109"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Jan 2019 06:17:50 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0A6Hofs011462 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:50 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 01:17:49 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 01:17:49 -0500
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <>
To: Yu Tianpeng <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment
Thread-Index: AdSK9MoVutPXDdgmS+OMrGu2oHHStwbzcVMAADMkm4AAE1uuAAAYKS0AABV2pwA=
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <17128_1543833795_5C0508C3_17128_38_7_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B778825@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_37D08E0DB95148F390E1A398A3A9E074ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 06:17:56 -0000

From: Yu Tianpeng <>
Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:03 AM
To: Cisco Employee <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment

Thanks a lot Ali for the updating.
Looks fine for me apart from one point.
Correct me if I am wrong for what mentioned below.
This document aims to enable capability of evpn to be used on ENNI. But ENNI also have EVPL, ELAN and ETREE services.  This document have a brilliant solution, but overall current document only mentions usage in ELAN, so the question is how about ETREE and VPWS? As the solution in this document is vES based, I believe it should work for ETREE and VPWS without much extra considerations.  So if authors agree, I prefer to cover this in the current document. It is also fine for me if authors' choice is out of scope and prefer to cover other scenarios in a separate document.

I have already added VPWS. However, there is no point to list every EVPN solution in this document or else we have to list not just evpn-etree but evpn-overlay, evpn-irb, evpn-mcast, evpn-fxc, etc.

By the way another nits..
Sub type in figure 6 is not consistent with description above. I got lost on this as previous version was still 0x04.. so if 0x07 is the correct one please fix the value in the figure

That has already been corrected.


Thanks a lot.


On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, 00:31 Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <<> wrote:
Thanks ali. I took look at the diff, it looks ok to me to move forward.


From: BESS <<>> on behalf of "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <<>>
Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 3:17 PM
To: Tim <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment

Tim, Mankamana,

The rev02 of the draft has the updates to address your latest comments.


From: BESS <<>> on behalf of Tim <<>>
Date: Monday, January 7, 2019 at 2:53 PM
To: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment


Support this work as an individual. This document is a great and elegant step for EVPN towards SP network.

Some small comments by the way:

1. Figure 2 shows the scope of EVPN network but the other figures in the document not. Please kindly update, then it is more readable.

2. There are 2 Figure 2

3. Document is lack of mention on E-Tree, it should work without any extra consideration right?

4. Please fix format issue in section 8 and update TBD in section 9.



On 2018/12/3 18:43,<> wrote:

Hello Working Group,

This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment [1]

This poll runs until *the 17th 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.

There is currently no IPR disclosed.

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




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 mailing list<>