Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree
"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com> Mon, 06 June 2016 16:57 UTC
Return-Path: <sajassi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1019812D84E for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kLPjFOAbAjXk for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1971212D52D for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=18298; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1465232233; x=1466441833; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=6OpJn1XAfzVpVggVPp0rLwlCLVfQSgMNH8TuNpl194U=; b=lBuR2x/vhyKwE5mgSzeFn1A8FXJMNRsV9VcmMKTpm1XLiT9is2RP0gzy pSY6xIYM4rDxb4dqnllztZUAlw5I7ufeXRQOtz+nnEEcIjSDqva0uYunc SITmZxs94phvAPTHoZySdoFrK4jsrLyAwA7zQqFIrSjk1a3MFNeY8EN42 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ARAgBCqlVX/51dJa1agztWbw4GulSBehcLhXACHIEXOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeERQEBAQQBAQEaBhE5ARcEAgEIEQQBAQECAiMDAgICJQsUAQgIAgQBEhSIGw6pd5ECAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWBAYhwgQOEEhEBHBcVglWCWQWYSAGGAogjgWmEUIMshTmPWQEeNoNubohkNn8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,428,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="112286768"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jun 2016 16:57:12 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (xch-rtp-005.cisco.com [64.101.220.145]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u56GvCUS029090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:57:12 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:57:11 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:57:11 -0400
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, "thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree
Thread-Index: AQHRUpaME/U9KT8MU0ut9l7k3idEc58OWnfAgAhLYwCAAYwoAIBC0CQAgBXcMACARGjgAIAS+kOAgBUQT4A=
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:57:11 +0000
Message-ID: <D37AF7BA.1A9413%sajassi@cisco.com>
References: <569DF8F7.2000703@orange.com> <BLUPR0501MB17159341A47F02A3C3DAEE2FD4DA0@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D2D408B5.1787CA%sajassi@cisco.com> <BLUPR0501MB17158A5216A36D1FD235F5FFD4DE0@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D30D9ADD.18AF48%sajassi@cisco.com> <13131_1459244945_56FA4F91_13131_9249_1_56FA4F90.300@orange.com> <D3596260.198C98%sajassi@cisco.com> <D3694CA4.1A2DB8%sajassi@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3694CA4.1A2DB8%sajassi@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.4.160422
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.19.76.53]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B4285BB9EC93674CA1707EA1F9E4FE4C@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/zdHJBNH7XWm1x0WDU0qW55lGa8k>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:57:16 -0000
Hi Thomas, Is there anything else you need from me or other co-authors to progress this daft? The WG LC was completed before last IETF. Regards, Ali On 5/24/16, 12:18 AM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com> wrote: > >Hi Thomas, > >Can you please progress this draft. The WG LC was completed on 3/29 and >all comments except a single optional comment were addressed before the >last IETF. The single optional comment was addressed couple of weeks ago >and the draft was re-published then. > >Regards, >Ali > > >On 5/11/16, 10:30 PM, "BESS on behalf of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" ><bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of sajassi@cisco.com> wrote: > >> >>Hi Thomas, >> >>I just made the final edits to evpn-etree draft and published it as >>rev05. >> >>Regards, >>Ali >> >>On 3/29/16, 2:49 AM, "thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com> >>wrote: >> >>>Hi everyone, >>> >>>This WG Last Call is now closed and the document will move to the next >>>steps toward publication. >>> >>>The modification mentioned below will be incorporated in next release. >>> >>>Best, >>> >>>-Thomas >>> >>> >>> >>>2016-03-15, Ali Sajassi (sajassi): >>>> >>>> Jeffrey, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/1/16, 2:41 PM, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ali, >>>>> >>>>> One more question about PBB-EVPN. >>>>> >>>>> For the regular EVPN, section 3.3.2 talks about a situation where the >>>>> only traffic is BUM. There is no need for mac learning in that >>>>>situation. >>>>> >>>>> For PBB-EVPN, I assume this is also possible. With this, there is no >>>>>need >>>>> to advertise per-ES B-mac addresses - a single pair of global >>>>>root/leaf >>>>> B-mac addresses are enough. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps this can be mentioned for parity/completeness. Of course, >>>>>this >>>>>is >>>>> not a big deal and either way it's fine - but I do want to ask to >>>>>confirm >>>>> my understanding. >>>> >>>> We’ll do. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Ali >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jeffrey >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:04 AM >>>>>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>; EXT - >>>>>> thomas.morin@orange.com <thomas.morin@orange.com>; BESS >>>>>><bess@ietf.org>; >>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree@tools.ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Jeffrey, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the review. Your comments helps tighten the draft some >>>>>>more. >>>>>> I >>>>>> have updated the draft and will publish it next (rev04). Majority of >>>>>>the >>>>>> comments were editorial in nature for better clarifications. Since >>>>>>the >>>>>> existing draft (rev03) reflects the consensus regarding our several >>>>>> rounds >>>>>> of discussions where we have taken care of the technical items, it >>>>>>is >>>>>> consistent with our expectation of not seeing any major issue during >>>>>>the >>>>>> LC. Please refer to my replies in line. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Ali >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/27/16, 5:26 PM, "BESS on behalf of Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" >>>>>> <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of zzhang@juniper.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I was involved in relevant discussions, and have reviewed once more >>>>>>>for >>>>>>> this LC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I support the publication, but with the following >>>>>>>questions/comments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2.1 Scenario 1: Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... If the number of EVIs is very large >>>>>>> (e.g., more than 32K or 64K), then RT type 0 as defined in >>>>>>>[RFC4360] >>>>>>> SHOULD be used; otherwise, RT type 2 is sufficient. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> RFC 7153 should be referenced for "Type 2". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Done. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Additionally, why is 32K mentioned? I can understand the 64k part. >>>>>> >>>>>> Removed 32K since the example is clear enough with 64K >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... the MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST be tagged with an >>>>>>> indication of whether they originated from a Leaf AC or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps change the last line to "indication if they originated from >>>>>>>a >>>>>>> Leaf AC"? Packets from a root AC are not tagged with a leaf >>>>>>>indication. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK. Better yet. It should say ³indication when they originated from >>>>>>a >>>>>> leaf >>>>>> AC². >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other mechanisms for identifying whether an egress AC is a root >>>>>>>or >>>>>>> leaf is beyond the scope of this document. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should "egress" be "ingress" in the above paragraph? Or simply >>>>>>>removed? >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice catch! It is ³ingress². It is now corrected. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... This Leaf MPLS label is advertised to other PE devices, >>>>>>> using a new EVPN Extended Community called E-TREE Extended >>>>>>>Community >>>>>>> (section 5.1) along with an Ethernet A-D per ES route with ESI >>>>>>>of >>>>>>> zero and a set of Route Targets (RTs) corresponding to all the >>>>>>>leaf >>>>>>> ACs on the PE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps change the last sentence to "... corresponding to all EVIs >>>>>>>that >>>>>>> have leaf sites on the PE." >>>>>> >>>>>> The second to last sentence of section 3.2.1 says the same thing. I >>>>>> changed this sentence and removed the 2nd to last sentence. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3.2.3 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a leaf AC >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this scenario, it is assumed that a multi-homed Ethernet >>>>>>>Segment >>>>>>> (ES) can have a mixed of both leaf and root ACs with each AC >>>>>>> designating a subnet (e.g., a VLAN). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand that different VLANs on the same ES could be roots or >>>>>>> leaves. I suppose it's more important to say that for the same >>>>>>>vlan, >>>>>>> different PEs on the same ES must have the same root/leaf >>>>>>>designation. >>>>>> >>>>>> That¹s given. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps the first sentence could be reworded as the following to >>>>>> capture >>>>>>> the above point: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While different ACs (VLANs) on the same ES could have different >>>>>>> root/leaf designation (some being roots and some being leaves), >>>>>>> the same VLAN does have the same root/leaf designation on all >>>>>>> PEs on the same ES. >>>>>> >>>>>> That¹s fine. It makes it more clear. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... the PEs with Leaf sites perform MAC learning in the >>>>>>> data-path over their Ethernet Segments, and advertise >>>>>>>reachability >>>>>> in >>>>>>> EVPN MAC Advertisement routes which are imported only by PEs >>>>>>>with >>>>>>>at >>>>>>> least one Root site in the EVI. A PE with only Leaf sites will >>>>>>>not >>>>>>> import these routes. PEs with Root and/or Leaf sites may use the >>>>>>> Ethernet A-D routes for aliasing (in the case of multi-homed >>>>>>> segments) and for mass MAC withdrawal per [RFC 7432]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The above seems to contradict with the recommendation in Section >>>>>>>2.2. >>>>>> If >>>>>>> the context is the scenario described in section 2.1 then that's >>>>>>>fine, >>>>>>> but the text does not have a clear context. >>>>>> >>>>>> Agreed. Updated the section to indicate the context is section 2.1. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3.3.2 E-Tree without MAC Learning >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The PEs implementing an E-Tree service need not perform MAC >>>>>>>learning >>>>>>> when the traffic flows between Root and Leaf sites are multicast >>>>>>>or >>>>>>> broadcast. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suppose an "only" word should be added at the end of the above >>>>>> sentence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Agreed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The fields of the IMET route are populated per the procedures >>>>>> defined >>>>>>> in [RFC7432], and the route import rules are as described in >>>>>> previous >>>>>>> sections. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The route import rules described in previous sections are for MAC >>>>>> routes, >>>>>>> not IMET routes. Additionally, those rules may not be recommended, >>>>>>>so >>>>>>> might as well delete the last sentence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Changed the last sentence to ³Š, and the multicast tunnel setup >>>>>>criteria >>>>>> are as described in the previous section.² >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Section 3.3.1 talks about BUM procedures. That is not specific to >>>>>>>3.3.1 >>>>>>> though. Perhaps extract that out to a separate section, and remove >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> BUM text from 3.3.2 as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it is OK. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The E-TREE Extended Community is encoded as an 8-octet value as >>>>>>> follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0 1 2 >>>>>>>3 >>>>>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>>>>>>0 1 >>>>>>> >>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>>>>> | Type=0x06 | Sub-Type=0x04 | Flags(1 Octet)| >>>>>> | >>>>>>> >>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>>>>> | Reserved=0 | Leaf Label >>>>>> | >>>>>>> >>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I assume the octect after the flags octet is also reserved=0. >>>>>>>Better >>>>>> mark >>>>>>> it as "Reserved=0". >>>>>> >>>>>> Agreed. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When it is used with Ethernet A-D per ES route, the leaf flag >>>>>>>SHOULD >>>>>>>be >>>>>>> set to 0 but ignored by the receiving routers. Therefore, why not >>>>>>>set >>>>>> it >>>>>>> to 1 to be consistent the MAC/IP route case? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the flag is used for known unicast traffic and Leaf label >>>>>>for >>>>>> BUM >>>>>> traffic. We don¹t want to mix the two. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Ali >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> Jeffrey >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas >>>>>>>>Morin >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:51 AM >>>>>>>> To: BESS <bess@ietf.org>; >>>>>>>>draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree@tools.ietf.org >>>>>>>> Subject: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hello Working Group, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This email starts a Working Group Last Call on >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree [1] which is considered mature and >>>>>>>>ready >>>>>> for >>>>>>>> a final working group review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent >>>>>>>>version >>>>>> yet >>>>>>>> (-03), and send your comments to the list, no later than *February >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> 2nd* (2016-02-02). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is not only a call for comments on the document, but also a >>>>>>>>call >>>>>> of >>>>>>>> support for its publication. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR >>>>>>>>that >>>>>>>> applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree, 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 a document author or contributor of >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree please respond to this email and >>>>>>>>indicate >>>>>>>> whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thomas/Martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>________________________________________________________________________ >>>_ >>>_ >>>_______________________________________________ >>> >>>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 >>BESS@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >
- [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree Thomas Morin
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… HENDERICKX, Wim (Wim)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… John E Drake
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… RABADAN, Jorge (Jorge)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Luay
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Wen Lin
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Samer Salam (ssalam)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Poorna Pushkala B
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Satya Mohanty (satyamoh)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Aldrin Isaac
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Sami Boutros
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… thomas.morin
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Thomas Morin
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… John E Drake
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)