Re: [bess] 答复: 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Well,

For one Mach's msg never made it to the list. I am not sure how you have
received it :)

Second my comment was general not just to you directly.

Why flowspec discussion now is derailed to RTC topic of same or different
RT. Both are completely orthogonal.

Cheers,
r.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:27 PM, UTTARO, JAMES <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Look just one message below what I wrote and one will find the
> following. I bolded the sentence.
>
>
>
> “Hi Weiguo, Wim and others,
>
>
>
> IMHO, AFI/SAFI based Flowspec would have better scalability and
> compatibility. *There is a precedent (RT-Constrain) that adopted the
> unified RT for all AFI/SAFI that bring many limitation when deploying RTC.*
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mach”
>
>
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Robert
> Raszuk
> *Sent:* Friday, November 14, 2014 9:09 AM
> *To:* UTTARO, JAMES
> *Cc:* Mach Chen; Haoweiguo; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Thomas Morin; BESS;
> IDR Chairs
> *Subject:* Re: [bess] 答复: 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
>
>
>
> Jim,
>
>
>
> And what now RTC has to do with this discussion ???
>
>
>
> r.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:51 PM, UTTARO, JAMES <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> IMO there are more important reasons why one does not deploy RTC.
>
> Jim Uttaro
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BESS [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mach Chen
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 2:05 AM
> To: Haoweiguo; Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Thomas Morin; BESS
> Cc: IDR Chairs
>
> Subject: Re: [bess] 答复: 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
>
> Hi Weiguo, Wim and others,
>
> IMHO, AFI/SAFI based Flowspec would have better scalability and
> compatibility. There is a precedent (RT-Constrain) that adopted the unified
> RT for all AFI/SAFI that bring many limitation when deploying RTC.
>
> Best regards,
> Mach
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BESS [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Haoweiguo
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 8:42 AM
> > To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Thomas Morin; BESS
> > Cc: IDR Chairs
> > Subject: [bess] 答复: 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
> >
> > Hi Wim,
> > It seems to be a solution. Another problem:
> > Current BGP flow spec for L2 VPN /L3 VPN relies on Rout Target for policy
> > import/export. If using unified solution, RT can't overlap between
> different
> > applications(L2VPN,L3VPN...). If using separating AFI/SAFI solution, no
> RT
> > constraint issue.
> > Maybe there are other questions for unified solution, i would like to
> hear other
> > expert's comments on your proposal.
> > Thanks
> > weiguo
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > 发件人: BESS [[e-mail]] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> > [[e-mail]]
> > 发送时间: 2014年11月14日 8:27
> > 收件人: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS
> > 抄送: IDR Chairs
> > 主题: Re: [bess] 答复:  答复:  Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
> >
> > We define a new AFI/SAFI that accommodates all we have + include L2
> > extensions.
> > Operators that don’t need L2 extensions keep what they have.
> > Operators that need L2 extensions go to the new method or mix the new
> > method with the old methods per service type.
> >
> > Make sense?
> >
> > On 13/11/14 14:16, "Haoweiguo" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > >How to achieve compatability with current existed flowspec[RFC5575]
> > >applications?
> > >Thanks
> > >weiguo
> > >
> > >________________________________________
> > >发件人: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [[e-mail]]
> > >发送时间: 2014年11月14日 8:14
> > >收件人: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS
> > >抄送: IDR Chairs
> > >主题: Re: 答复: [bess] Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
> > >
> > >If we define a new things I prefer to address the wider issue and
> > >include
> > >L2 in that.
> > >
> > >On 13/11/14 14:13, "Haoweiguo" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hi Wim,
> > >>Allocating different AFI/SAFI(s) for each flow spec application is a
> > >>applicable solution. Theoretically, unified mechanism for all flowspec
> > >>can be designed, but it maybe a more harder work in IDR.
> > >>Thanks
> > >>weiguo
> > >>
> > >>________________________________________
> > >>发件人: BESS [[e-mail]] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> > >>[[e-mail]]
> > >>发送时间: 2014年11月14日 7:55
> > >>收件人: Thomas Morin; BESS
> > >>抄送: IDR Chairs
> > >>主题: Re: [bess] Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
> > >>
> > >>As I stated in the IDR meeting my observation is that we require to
> > >>many
> > >>AFI/SAFI(s) for all flow spec functions. Flow spec in general is
> > >>providing match criteria¹s with related actions. Given the proposal on
> > >>Flowspec for
> > >>L2 is new we should look at the bigger picture.
> > >>In My view we need a mechanism in BGP to advertise Flowspec match
> > >>criteria¹s with related actions and they should cover L2/L3-IPv4/IPv6.
> > >>
> > >>On 13/11/14 13:44, "Thomas Morin" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Hi WG,
> > >>>
> > >>>A heads up...
> > >>>
> > >>>These two drafts relate to BESS and thus may be of interest to us:
> > >>>- draft-hao-idr-flowspec-l2vpn
> > >>><http://tools.ietf.org/html?draft=draft-hao-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-01>
> > >>>(on idr agenda, being presented right now)
> > >>>- draft-hao-idr-flowspec-evpn
> > >>><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-evpn-00>
> > >>>
> > >>>Best,
> > >>>
> > >>>-Thomas
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>_______________________________________________
> > >>>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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>