IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: seeking information on draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding

"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com> Wed, 20 August 2014 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <sajassi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18071A04B9 for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 8tEimVrQDmRL for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 587AE1A04B4 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 10:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11708; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1408555957; x=1409765557; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=JibKQFGVP5OrYrzA2blOXQs66A7lKhkJB0auFCq49HQ=; b=C8NzfX423vYgH+jqGTJZHRKUZx8KlxEo3OQGjLo6EX/COJVn5j8S/e9i Havaq/5v+09VNcSZqDK0oR5+bpvRYAoUNq2ogTcdYbbDisUD4Wsv6rMO5 Qh3oHb1LD8HMO6jy9m+SnCr2FLFeSfOLCK6HdzSGnRcaBsz37uNgzRb26 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmYFAOfa9FOtJA2D/2dsb2JhbABZgkcjI1NXBNQiAYERFneEAwECBC1MEgEIDgMDAQIoORQJCAIEAQ0FiEIBwwcXjzsRB4RMBZElix+MIYhpg11sgUiBBwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,903,1400025600"; d="scan'208,217";a="349088502"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Aug 2014 17:32:36 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7KHWZeV022393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:32:35 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:32:35 -0500
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: seeking information on draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding
Thread-Topic: seeking information on draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding
Thread-Index: AQHPvJy6kH3kaQYcrU+9OP8Eu24fog==
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:32:34 +0000
Message-ID: <D01A2830.E437C%sajassi@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <00ac01cfbbdf$e9a1f440$bce5dcc0$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416
x-originating-ip: [10.128.2.100]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D01A2830E437Csajassiciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2vpn/2xo4zTVXqRDpW0OwsRkXc6f2Qvg
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:32:40 -0000

Hi Sue,

Very good observation! And you are right, there is a high degree of overlap between the two. As the matter of fact, during the IETF meeting, I had a chat with some of the co-authors to point out this overlap and to request to go with the one in the remote-next-hop draft.

Cheers,
Ali

From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>>
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:00 PM
To: "l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>" <l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>>
Cc: Cisco Employee <sajassi@cisco.com<mailto:sajassi@cisco.com>>, 'Lucy yong' <lucy.yong@huawei.com<mailto:lucy.yong@huawei.com>>, "linda.dunbar@huawei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@huawei.com>" <linda.dunbar@huawei.com<mailto:linda.dunbar@huawei.com>>
Subject: seeking information on draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding

Hi all:

The draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding-04.txt proposes a tunnel attribute which is similar to draft-vandevelde-idr-remote-next-hop-07 (which is up for WG Adoption in IDR).   Can you tell me why we have two proposed BGP attributes for tunnels with a high overlap?

My first impression is that “great minds” think align to solve different problems using BGP, but had not chatted with each other to collaborate.  Is this reason the drafts are alike?

Sue Hares

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email