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

["Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <[e-mail]>]

It also works with VXLAN/GPE btw. On top the solution I outlined is future proof as well.

The key question is do people want a native VXLAN/NVGRE solution in the DC using existing TOR HW and/or vwitches. This will imply dealing with:
- Global VNID/labels -> driven by current TOR HW (most people will never deploy this)
- We have not spoken about the MAC manipulation in all details but will most likely require a routing lookup in the TOR and will limit performance in some HW TOR(s).

- An implementation on ASBR that only is required for this use case. It will be very expensive to carry forward -> the cost versus the benefit is big and if people want a uniform data plane VXLAN-GPE is an option which is very close to native VXLAN.



On 20/11/15 22:21, "Haoweiguo" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Jorge,
>We all know that Wim's MPLS/MPLS/UDP solution works, but it's not the only choice. Wim's solution requires MPLSoGRE/UDP encap in data center, but many data centers only use VXLAN/NVGRE encapsulation for both north-south and east-west bound traffic, how to interconnect with outside MPLS VPN network for these data centers? So VXLAN/NVGRE and MPLS VPN network interworking is needed.
>And for the interconnection solution, we suggest both no TOR/NVE hardware enhancement solution and future proof solution should be provided.
>Thanks,
>weiguo
>________________________________________
>From: BESS [[e-mail]] on behalf of Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge) [[e-mail]]
>Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 3:31
>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 goal,
>>> >>>>> TM> 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
>_______________________________________________
>BESS mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess