Return-Path: X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4041A014F for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:37:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 cOI6Y-wpuQue for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:36:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CC811A1A4D for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:36:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id l13so1717876iga.2 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:36:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Pvzcku1QZA9/suDD7Ikzfjc3TNT9DtZhCDHq73q4t2I=; b=0Z7h/MS6356J+HX8qGSfyRSvXzlh2Umd0jPgcjv2yhyFMgrSjggdAPo3yNozFRZF5A GX4iw77H6mFZQHbj8k95xVoCRFQZBZKHK4frA81/kSwnfKasPi6kFZUPiSgILXUvR4O0 Kd4tECmywk5fLrJ3D41C1tbLC22BAtU1YXBn+xErx0R8axhO6dNatVCDLvTqb6VuB8FI 5LKFl8TiuMV2+YvVAJD55rrkxFxcTo8Mv4tuEv17P/TVXY5wFBerYwL3kDNdUJBE5l+Z 5Duo/JF496JO7c4r5S37Bos01y2Xr5WA/TuEEi5bmvSrCCjGPSDJe+jUkzazGEp/LA0x Wweg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.47.223 with SMTP id v92mr2055168iov.75.1415975816452; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:36:56 -0800 (PST) Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.171.149 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Nov 2014 06:36:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 15:36:56 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: rlYYGk-O7ksTgowqUkD5PmOlk6E Message-ID: From: Robert Raszuk To: "UTTARO, JAMES" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135b9da8ce2b10507d28f8d Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/zmL1VxBhmEIvphneGnN57LuDhqo Cc: Mach Chen , IDR Chairs , Haoweiguo , Thomas Morin , "Henderickx, Wim \(Wim\)" , BESS Subject: Re: [bess] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiDnrZTlpI06IOetlOWkjTogRmxvd3NwZWMgZm9y?= =?utf-8?q?_L2VPN_and_E-VPN?= X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:37:00 -0000 --001a1135b9da8ce2b10507d28f8d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 wrote: > Look just one message below what I wrote and one will find the > following. I bolded the sentence. > > > > =E2=80=9CHi 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=E2=80=9D > > > > *From:* rraszuk@gmail.com [mailto:rraszuk@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Rober= t > 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] =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: =E7=AD=94= =E5=A4=8D: 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 wrote: > > IMO there are more important reasons why one does not deploy RTC. > > Jim Uttaro > > -----Original Message----- > From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] 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] =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: =E7=AD=94=E5= =A4=8D: 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 unifi= ed > RT for all AFI/SAFI that bring many limitation when deploying RTC. > > Best regards, > Mach > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Haoweiguo > > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 8:42 AM > > To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Thomas Morin; BESS > > Cc: IDR Chairs > > Subject: [bess] =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4= =8D: 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 poli= cy > > 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 > > > > ________________________________________ > > =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: BESS [bess-bounces@ietf.org] =E4=BB=A3=E8= =A1=A8 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > > [wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com] > > =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2014=E5=B9=B411=E6=9C=8814=E6=97= =A5 8:27 > > =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS > > =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: IDR Chairs > > =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [bess] =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D:= Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN > > > > We define a new AFI/SAFI that accommodates all we have + include L2 > > extensions. > > Operators that don=E2=80=99t 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" wrote: > > > > >How to achieve compatability with current existed flowspec[RFC5575] > > >applications? > > >Thanks > > >weiguo > > > > > >________________________________________ > > >=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [wim.henderickx@alc= atel-lucent.com] > > >=E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2014=E5=B9=B411=E6=9C=8814=E6=97= =A5 8:14 > > >=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS > > >=E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: IDR Chairs > > >=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: [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" wrote: > > > > > >>Hi Wim, > > >>Allocating different AFI/SAFI(s) for each flow spec application is a > > >>applicable solution. Theoretically, unified mechanism for all flowspe= c > > >>can be designed, but it maybe a more harder work in IDR. > > >>Thanks > > >>weiguo > > >> > > >>________________________________________ > > >>=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: BESS [bess-bounces@ietf.org] =E4=BB=A3= =E8=A1=A8 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) > > >>[wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com] > > >>=E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2014=E5=B9=B411=E6=9C=8814=E6= =97=A5 7:55 > > >>=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Thomas Morin; BESS > > >>=E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: IDR Chairs > > >>=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: 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 criteria=C2=B9s with related actions. Given the propo= sal 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 > > >>criteria=C2=B9s with related actions and they should cover L2/L3-IPv4= /IPv6. > > >> > > >>On 13/11/14 13:44, "Thomas Morin" 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 > > >>> > > >>>(on idr agenda, being presented right now) > > >>>- draft-hao-idr-flowspec-evpn > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Best, > > >>> > > >>>-Thomas > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > --001a1135b9da8ce2b10507d28f8d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well,

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

Second my = comment was general not just to you directly.=C2=A0

=
Why flowspec discussion now is derailed to RTC topic of= same or different RT. Both are completely orthogonal.
<= br>
Cheers,
r.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:2= 7 PM, UTTARO, JAMES <ju1738@att.com> wrote:

Look just one message bel= ow what I wrote and one will find the following. I bolded the sentence.<= /u>

=C2=A0

=E2=80=9CHi Weiguo, Wim a= nd others,

=C2=A0

IMHO, AFI/SAFI based Flow= spec 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.

=C2=A0

Best regards,

Mach=E2=80=9D

=C2=A0

From: rraszuk@gmail.com [mail= to:rraszuk@gmail.com= ] 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] =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: Flowspec fo= r L2VPN and E-VPN

=C2=A0

= Jim,

= =C2=A0

= And what now RTC has to do with this discussion ???

= =C2=A0

= r.

=C2=A0

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:51 PM, UTTARO, JAMES <<= a href=3D"mailto:ju1738@att.com" target=3D"_blank">ju1738@att.com> w= rote:

IMO there are more important reasons why one does no= t deploy RTC.

Jim Uttaro

-----Original Message-----
From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] 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] =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D= : =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN

Hi Weiguo, Wim and others,

IMHO, AFI/SAFI based Flowspec would have better scalability and compatibili= ty. 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:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Haoweiguo
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 8:42 AM
> To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim); Thomas Morin; BESS
> Cc: IDR Chairs
> Subject: [bess] =E7= =AD=94=E5=A4=8D: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D: =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA= : BESS [bess-bou= nces@ietf.org] =E4=BB=A3=E8=A1=A8= Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> [wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
> =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97= =B4: 2014=E5=B9=B4= 11=E6=9C=88= 14=E6=97=A5 8:27 > =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6= =E4=BA=BA: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS
> =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: IDR Chairs
> =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [bess] =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D= :=C2=A0 =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D:=C2=A0 Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
>
> We define a new AFI/SAFI that accommodates all we have + include L2 > extensions.
> Operators that don=E2=80=99t need L2 extensions keep what they have. > Operators that need L2 extensions go to the new method or mix the new<= br> > method with the old methods per service type.
>
> Make sense?
>
> On 13/11/14 14:16, "Haoweiguo" <haoweiguo@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> >How to achieve compatability with current existed flowspec[RFC5575= ]
> >applications?
> >Thanks
> >weiguo
> >
> >________________________________________
> >=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
> >=E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9= =97=B4: 2014=E5=B9= =B411=E6=9C=8814=E6=97=A5 8:1= 4
> >=E6=94=B6=E4=BB= =B6=E4=BA=BA: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS
> >=E6=8A=84=E9=80= =81: IDR Chairs
> >=E4=B8=BB= =E9=A2=98: Re: =E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D= : [bess] Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
> >
> >If we define a new things I prefer to address the wider issue and<= br> > >include
> >L2 in that.
> >
> >On 13/11/14 14:13, "Haoweiguo" <haoweiguo@huawei.com> wrote: > >
> >>Hi Wim,
> >>Allocating different AFI/SAFI(s) for each flow spec applicatio= n is a
> >>applicable solution. Theoretically, unified mechanism for all = flowspec
> >>can be designed, but it maybe a more harder work in IDR.
> >>Thanks
> >>weiguo
> >>
> >>________________________________________
> >>=E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA= =BA: BESS [bess-bounces@ietf.org] =E4=BB=A3=E8=A1=A8= Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> >>[wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
> >>=E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97= =B6=E9=97=B4: 2014= =E5=B9=B411=E6=9C= =8814=E6=97=A5 7:55
> >>=E6=94=B6=E4= =BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Thomas Morin; BESS
> >>=E6=8A=84=E9= =80=81: IDR Chairs
> >>=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [bess] Flowsp= ec for L2VPN and E-VPN
> >>
> >>As I stated in the IDR meeting my observation is that we requi= re to
> >>many
> >>AFI/SAFI(s) for all flow spec functions. Flow spec in general = is
> >>providing match criteria=C2=B9s with related actions. Given th= e 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 ma= tch
> >>criteria=C2=B9s with related actions and they should cover L2/= L3-IPv4/IPv6.
> >>
> >>On 13/11/14 13:44, "Thomas Morin" <thomas.morin@orange.com&= gt; wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi WG,
> >>>
> >>>A heads up...
> >>>
> >>>These two drafts relate to BESS and thus may be of interes= t to us:
> >>>- draft-hao-idr-flowspec-l2vpn
> >>><http://tools.ietf.org/html?draft= =3Ddraft-hao-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-01>
> >>>(on idr agenda, being presented right now)
> >>>- draft-hao-idr-flowspec-evpn
> >>><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hao-id= r-flowspec-evpn-00>
> >>>
> >>>Best,
> >>>
> >>>-Thomas
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>BESS mailing list
> >>>BESS@ie= tf.org
> >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>BESS mailing list
> >>BESS@ietf.o= rg
> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

=C2=A0


--001a1135b9da8ce2b10507d28f8d--