Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover

["Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[e-mail]>]

Sorry for the delay. Will take care of it this week.

Thanks.
Jeffrey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 12:15 PM
> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; EXT -
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Robert Kebler
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-
> mvpn-fast-failover
> 
> Hi Jeffery,
> wondering if you got chance to updated text & if you are fine with it.
> 
> Mankamana
> 
> > On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:09 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your clarification!
> > I made a mistake that I thought the BFD session is the base solution for UMH
> failover.
> > Now I get it. Thank you!
> > BTW: In section 3.1.2, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-08" may be mentioned as
> another example like MPLS FRR.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sandy
> > ------------------原始邮件------------------
> > 发件人：GregMirsky <[e-mail]>
> > 收件人：张征00007940;
> > 抄送人：[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>;Thomas Morin <[e-mail]>;Robert
> Kebler <[e-mail]>;BESS <[e-mail]>;
> > 日 期 ：2019年02月14日 10:38
> > 主 题 ：Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-
> mvpn-fast-failover
> > Hi Sandy,
> > thank you for your kind consideration of the proposed updates. I've logged
> my answers under GIM3>> tag.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:44 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > Thank you for your good modification and clarification!
> > About two sections I still have some comments, I copy the contents here
> because the mail is too long:
> > 1,
> > 3. I am confused with section 3.1.1/3.1.2/3.1.3. IMO only the X-PMSI tunnel's
> state influence the BFD session, there is no need for other decision.
> > GIM2>> The Upstream PE as MultipointHead of the p2mp BFD session may
> use a combination of conditions (the combination being determined by policy)
> to control the state of the BFD session, e.g., set it to AdminDown. I think that
> the use of policy to control the conditions that affect the P-tunnel reception
> state is the advantage of the proposed solution. What do you think?
> > 4. For section 3.1.5, IMO the counter method has no relationship with the
> BFD function defined in this document. If the counter method will be used as a
> supplement for BFD session?
> > GIM2>> As above, this is one of the conditions, controlled by the policy, that
> may be considered to influence the state of the BFD session.
> > Sandy2> Since BFD packet is forwarding through by x-PMSI tunnel, egress PE
> can get the tunnel states by BFD detection timer expiration. So administrator
> may choose different policies to control the session state, but the bfd packets
> detection should be the base. IMO section 3.1.1~4 are optional.
> > GIM3>> I re-read the 3.1 and I think now better understand the original idea.
> All methods listed in sub-sections, including the one that describes use of
> p2mp BFD, are alternatives, options to detect a failure in the tunnel. Would
> the following update be helpful:
> > OLD TEXT:
> > The procedure proposed here also allows that all downstream PEs don't
> > apply the same rules to define what the status of a P-tunnel is
> > (please see Section 6), and some of them will produce a result that
> > may be different for different downstream PEs.
> > NEW TEXT:
> > The optional procedures proposed in this section also allow that all
> downstream PEs don't
> > apply the same rules to define what the status of a P-tunnel is
> > (please see Section 6), and some of them will produce a result that
> > may be different for different downstream PEs.
> >
> > For section 3.1.5 counter information, how do the configurable timer work
> with the bfd detection timer? What should egress PE do with the expiration of
> the two timers when they are both used?
> > GIM3>> MPLS FRR is mentioned in the draft as an example of the "fast
> restoration mechanism". Likely, FRR will be enabled by single-hop p2p BFD per
> protected link. If that's the case, for the scenario described in this sub-section,
> p2mp BFD is unnecessary.
> >
> > 2.
> > For section 3.1.7.1, the last sentence.
> > GIM2>> I think that Jeffrey asked why the new BFD Discriminator must be
> sent and the new p2mp BFD session must be initiated. Your question, as I
> interpret it, is to how operationally an implementation can minimize the
> disruption when the new BFD session advertised to replace one that already
> exists. Firstly, would we agree that sending the new BGP-BFD Discriminator
> and starting the new p2mp BFD session when the RPF interface changes is the
> right action? If we agree, then I can add a sentence or two to describe optional
> procedure for the upstream PE to minimize the disruption when the egress PE
> switches to the new p2mp BFD session.
> > Sandy2>If the "old" BFD discriminator can be reused in the new
> advertisement when the switchover is happened on a same upstream PE? If
> the "old" discriminator can be reused, it seems like it isn't necessary to build a
> new BFD session. But if a new BFD discriminator MUST be generated, then the
> new add sentence looks good to me.
> > GIM3>> Would the following update to the last paragraph address your
> concern:
> > OLD TEXT:
> > 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.
> > NEW TEXT:
> > 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 the previously advertised value of
> the BFD
> > Discriminator is associated with the new RPF link.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sandy
> > ------------------原始邮件------------------
> > 发件人：GregMirsky <[e-mail]>
> > 收件人：张征00007940;
> > 抄送人：[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>;Thomas Morin <[e-mail]>;Robert
> Kebler <[e-mail]>;BESS <[e-mail]>;
> > 日 期 ：2019年02月07日 08:16
> > 主 题 ：Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-
> mvpn-fast-failover
> > Hi Sandy,much appreciate your comments. Please find my answers below
> tagged GIM2>>.
> > Attached, please find the updated working version and the diff to the last
> published version.
> > Kind regards,
> > Greg
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:40 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Greg, Jeffrey, co-authors,
> > About the questions provided by Jeffrey, I have some concerns, please see
> below with Sandy>.
> > And I have some other questions:
> > 1. According to "draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-19" and the function defined in this
> draft, IMO the BFD session should be demultiplexed by the combination of
> upstream peer address, the discriminator and the X-PMSI which is used for
> flow forwarding. IMO these content should be written in the draft clearly.
> > GIM2>> Agreed and to clarify I propose the following update to the
> Downstream PE Procedures:
> > OLD TEXT:
> > On receiving the BGP-BFD Attribute in the x-PMSI A-D Route, the
> > Downstream PE:
> > o  MUST associate the received BFD discriminator value with the
> > P-tunnel originating from the Root PE;
> > o  MUST create p2mp BFD session and set bfd.SessionType =
> > MultipointTail as described in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint];
> > o  MUST use the source IP address of a BFD control packet, the value
> > of BFD Discriminator from the BGP-BFD Attribute to properly
> > demultiplex BFD sessions;
> > NEW TEXT:
> > Upon receiving the BGP-BFD Attribute in the x-PMSI A-D Route, the
> > Downstream PE:
> > o  MUST associate the received BFD discriminator value with the
> > P-tunnel originating from the Root PE and the IP address of the
> > Upstream PE;
> > o  MUST create p2mp BFD session and set bfd.SessionType =
> > MultipointTail as described in [I-D.ietf-bfd-multipoint];
> > o  MUST use the source IP address of the BFD control packet, the
> > value of the BFD Discriminator field, and the x-PMSI tunnel
> > identifier the BFD control packet was received to properly
> > demultiplex BFD sessions.
> > 2. The P2MP BFD packet should be delivered in the X-PMSI tunnel. The BFD
> multicast packet MUST be encapsulated in associated tunnel. It seems like
> there is no specifiction for it.
> > GIM2>> Agree and to clarify I propose the following text to be added to the
> Upstream PE Procedures section:
> > NEW TEXT:
> > o  MUST periodically transmit BFD control packets over the x-PMSI
> > tunnel.
> > 3. I am confused with section 3.1.1/3.1.2/3.1.3. IMO only the X-PMSI tunnel's
> state influence the BFD session, there is no need for other decision.
> > GIM2>> The Upstream PE as MultipointHead of the p2mp BFD session may
> use a combination of conditions (the combination being determined by policy)
> to control the state of the BFD session, e.g., set it to AdminDown. I think that
> the use of policy to control the conditions that affect the P-tunnel reception
> state is the advantage of the proposed solution. What do you think?
> > 4. For section 3.1.5, IMO the counter method has no relationship with the
> BFD function defined in this document. If the counter method will be used as a
> supplement for BFD session?
> > GIM2>> As above, this is one of the conditions, controlled by the policy, that
> may be considered to influence the state of the BFD session.
> > Thanks,
> > Sandy
> > 原始邮件
> > 发件人：GregMirsky <[e-mail]>
> > 收件人：[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> > 抄送人：[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;Thomas Morin
> <[e-mail]>;Robert Kebler <[e-mail]>;BESS
> <[e-mail]>;
> > 日 期 ：2018年12月06日 02:38
> > 主 题 ：Re: [bess] WGLC,IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-
> mvpn-fast-failover
> > _______________________________________________
> > BESS mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bess&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scb
> fh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
> m=RMOKFku4FfBJcJIXut6wZWRxOy_iB2nCqiVl6QShD0s&s=m71Y9twizeuNa6A
> QckEPQk9PX2R5h7NBU56QIUR5Dz8&e=
> > 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
> <[e-mail]> 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.
> > Sandy> I think Jeffrey means that a egress PE may choose a new UMH after
> the the "old" UMH fails. Then the egress PE may also receive (C-S, C-G) flows
> from old UMH p-tunnel, these flows MUST be discarded according to section
> 9.1.1 of RFC6513.
> > GIM2>> I think that the proposed text may address the comment. I'm,as
> always, open to suggestions on how to modify, refine the proposed new text.
> > 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?
> > Sandy> Diffrent UMH selection methods don't influent p2mp BFD
> documented in this draft. IMO both of section 3 and section 5 need to be
> mentioned here in order to avoid confusion.
> > GIM2>> Very helpful clarification, thank you. Please consider the following
> update to section 4:
> > OLD TEXT:
> > The procedures
> > require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE
> > selection, as specified in [RFC6513].
> > NEW TEXT:
> > The procedures
> > require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE
> > selection, as specified in [RFC6513], whether the PE selected based
> > on its IP address, hashing algorithm described in section 5.1.3
> > [RFC6513], or Installed UMH Route.
> > 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>> Would s/one or more of/at least one of/ address your concern?
> > Sandy> I am not sure there are the situations that  two or more LSPs are
> used to deliver a same (C-S, C-G). IMO only the LSP used by forwarding need
> to be mointor in egress PE.
> > GIM>> I need to defer this to Thomas and Rob. If you agree with Sandy,
> should we just remove the sentence?
> > There are several occurrences of ((S, G)). I assume they should be  changed
> to (C-S, C-G).
> > GIM>> Indeed, globally replaced s/((S,G))/(C-S,C-G)/
> > A PE can be removed from the UMH candidate list for a given ((S, G))
> > if the P-tunnel for this (S, G) (I or S , depending) is leaf
> > triggered (PIM, mLDP)
> > Perhaps either remove the (I or S , depending)or  move it to before the “for”.
> > GIM>> Moved before the "for".
> > This document defines the format and ways of usingr a new BGP
> > attribute called the "BGP- BFD attribute".
> > s/usingr/using/
> > GIM>> Yes, great catch.
> > o  MUST use [Ed.note] address as destination IP address when
> > transmitting BFD control packets;
> > [Ed.note]?
> > GIM>> Replaced [Ed...note] to make it as follows:
> > o  MUST use address in 127.0.0.0/8 range for IPv4 or in
> > 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104 range for IPv6 as destination IP address
> > when transmitting BFD control packets;
> > 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.
> > s/the the/then the/
> > GIM>> Done.
> > … The dedicated p2mp BFD session MAY monitor the state of
> > the Standby Upstream PE.
> > What does the above text mean? Do you mean “A different p2mp BFD
> session  …”?
> > GIM>> Yes, thank you for the suggested re-wording. Applied s/The
> dedicated/A different/
> > 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/
> > s/recommended/RECOMMENDED/?
> > GIM>> Great catch, thank you. Done.
> > 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.
> > Sandy> I agree with Jeffrey. The BFD detection should be mapping to specific
> flow/flows associated with X-PMSIs, not the PE-CE link. The PE-CE link should
> influence the X-PMSIs and associated (C-S, C-G) flows. The AdminDown
> function defined in BFD works normally.
> > GIM2>> The described behavior of the egress PE is optional and can be
> controlled by the local policy.
> > …  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.
> > Sandy> I have the same question with Jeffrey. If RPF interface changes on
> the upstream PE, and a new route generated with a new BFD discriminator, a
> new P2MP BFD session need to be established and the network stability will be
> influenced. We need a function to guarantee the existed BFD session should
> not be influenced.
> > GIM2>> I think that Jeffrey asked why the new BFD Discriminator must be
> sent and the new p2mp BFD session must be initiated. Your question, as I
> interpret it, is to how operationally an implementation can minimize the
> disruption when the new BFD session advertised to replace one that already
> exists. Firstly, would we agree that sending the new BGP-BFD Discriminator
> and starting the new p2mp BFD session when the RPF interface changes is the
> right action? If we agree, then I can add a sentence or two to describe optional
> procedure for the upstream PE to minimize the disruption when the egress PE
> switches to the new p2mp BFD session.
> > 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.
> > Sandy> I agree with Jeffrey. There is no limition for advertising same flows
> through more than two PEs. Maybe the text should be modify to the UMH and
> the next best UMH.
> > GIM2>>  Thank you for the suggestion. Jeffrey and Sandy, would the
> following update address your concerns:
> > OLD TEXT:
> > 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].
> > NEW TEXT:
> > The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site
> > that contains C-S is connected to two or more PEs though, to simplify
> > the description, the case of dual-homing is described.  The
> > procedures require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the UMH
> > selection, as specified in [RFC6513], whether the PE selected based
> > on its IP address, hashing algorithm described in section 5.1.3
> > [RFC6513], or Installed UMH Route.
> > This route, that has the semantics of being a 'standby'
> > C-multicast route, is further called a "Standby BGP C-multicast
> > route", and is constructed as follows:
> > o  the NLRI is constructed as the original C-multicast route, except
> > that the RD is the same as if the C-multicast route was built
> > using the standby PE as the UMH (it will carry the RD associated
> > to the unicast VPN route advertised by the standby PE for S)
> > Since you mention RD, you might as well mention it carries a Route  Target
> derived from the standby RE’s UMH route’s VRF RT Import EC.
> > GIM>> Woud the following be acceptable:
> > NEW TEXT:
> > o  the NLRI is constructed as the original C-multicast route, except
> > that the RD is the same as if the C-multicast route was built
> > using the standby PE as the UMH (it will carry the RD associated
> > to the unicast VPN route advertised by the standby PE for S and a
> > Route Target derived from the standby PE's UMH route's VRF RT
> > Import EC)
> > 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?
> > 4.3.  Reachability determination
> > The standby PE can use the following information to determine that
> > C-S can or cannot be reached through the primary PE:
> > Shouldn’t this be 4.2.1 instead of 4.3?
> > GIM>> Yes, agree. Thank you.
> > 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?
> > Thanks.
> > Jeffrey
> > From: BESS <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of
> [e-mail]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 2:54 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Dmvpn-2Dfast-
> 2Dfailover_&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
> m=RMOKFku4FfBJcJIXut6wZWRxOy_iB2nCqiVl6QShD0s&s=vCfbC9yPtZ9qAFQx
> uTmruzhDLGsbxGOeOEVZTkLi0-A&e=
> > [2]  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_bess_cG3X1tTqb-
> 5FvPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=f7wsLGcfzAWDNS6XNTBZwj_OLAOsZZqdrR2IDAzeZqE&
> m=RMOKFku4FfBJcJIXut6wZWRxOy_iB2nCqiVl6QShD0s&s=D_VQGRJF-
> 5egcJD7ddZBtfxn2orUYTGrsrks6RHw2Oo&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.