Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Review for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-10
Sami Boutros <sboutros@vmware.com> Mon, 13 March 2017 16:39 UTC
Return-Path: <sboutros@vmware.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D463A1296E3; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=onevmw.onmicrosoft.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 WP1E41xmcFhV; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0080.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D306129465; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 09:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=onevmw.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-vmware-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=9Lcho96C/8yUYlcApSV+6C73H03VushMYqF6M3w5BRU=; b=CCCLNBXP/vYIgJmzL7c9nnsrAA5uDhl7JyLZvHNqIMKIJnId+xRXxQZFqneIItVovJTw2W4bvjKOQZ5Km09aQ7FgLaq3FA1inhEemRyiry06Mif50zSbjUAKgzpx3iQ83CBG+qZx44hPII4GV5K9cgPfSvqOB15KyPOtONtSKWQ=
Received: from BN6PR05MB3009.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.173.19.15) by BN6PR05MB3012.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.173.19.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.977.5; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:38:58 +0000
Received: from BN6PR05MB3009.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.19.15]) by BN6PR05MB3009.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.19.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0977.010; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:38:58 +0000
From: Sami Boutros <sboutros@vmware.com>
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, Routing ADs <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>, Routing Directorate <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Routing Directorate Review for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-10
Thread-Index: AQHSlDuI/Ow9Knx4yEm0UAqeXGTsw6GM45SAgATD4oD//4dBgIABrjyA//+WhICAAJCxgP//jqmA
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:38:58 +0000
Message-ID: <3E103056-7E56-4DC6-BA09-0DE906B4D8AC@vmware.com>
References: <D4DF046E.A0B7A%acee@cisco.com> <3954A93E-FA95-43DE-9CC5-40725C94C4A1@vmware.com> <D4EB020B.A1450%acee@cisco.com> <2F8E6D0C-D7C6-4693-901D-0EF2AC2D6224@vmware.com> <A9F382CB-F71A-46C6-96E8-FD00778A9E46@nokia.com> <C119CFBA-D7D2-49D0-9DEF-3345E752F259@vmware.com> <C1500DF7-FCB0-4FA8-996C-E5D0610D15BF@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <C1500DF7-FCB0-4FA8-996C-E5D0610D15BF@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: nokia.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;nokia.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=vmware.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [208.91.2.1]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN6PR05MB3012; 7:pVTgVU7VK3pa2scyirloyiOI+wrQo4FiowX7Pmotm3jT3FS8eCBSwObb44J3/aCYzMSJxgILQ52xPXt79TefsZBPxdICzvnWAY7LGlCgdecOHmkHoeOJGjVex4ZkYP1tGvkBBvuYjZPe7G6/8yMreRWACrUOZOt9r9bSp04uXjCDucRncZ9NE23LjSMcAkfAzMGaFntyWOw7A60YCRCAtszuQFAQDUHcNT4lnuQzqte7sMCCVYMMz7rRXq7lQueiKd4qzamLM1E9E+CA3Oh0LN+TvEuh7VkKNvXOSdsFR5hoVziQB87fVn1EfgPyPDkXGzqV/Zb2hdSppr+ZdWcSDA==; 20:fqlNgfKlIstic10ilkaDKEcZ4vOAWNnCLeKoLBwsu8tRSDnOakwCzfL7/FiRFaGRzX8/A/PNtatWd9uSb8OC7kXQ9FnalL/K6WQDM3AOOvDLs7f1iXQki5s1fibHUxwJWMwAP7SP3Qfv7QCDe2YfpZjV0iwC+m1GdsL08ffBFp4=
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 492780c7-52eb-49a3-b1a4-08d46a2f72c9
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:BN6PR05MB3012;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR05MB301238085CA6CCFAA93F39ACBE250@BN6PR05MB3012.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(61668805478150)(82608151540597)(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(20161123558025)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(6072148); SRVR:BN6PR05MB3012; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN6PR05MB3012;
x-forefront-prvs: 0245702D7B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(39450400003)(39830400002)(39410400002)(24454002)(377454003)(3660700001)(36756003)(81166006)(2950100002)(8936002)(6512007)(106116001)(6246003)(2900100001)(122556002)(99286003)(38730400002)(33656002)(53546007)(8676002)(25786008)(66066001)(53946003)(76176999)(54356999)(50986999)(305945005)(2906002)(53936002)(7736002)(3280700002)(82746002)(86362001)(5660300001)(189998001)(2501003)(6486002)(5890100001)(230783001)(3846002)(93886004)(77096006)(6116002)(6436002)(6506006)(229853002)(83716003)(102836003)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR05MB3012; H:BN6PR05MB3009.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <EF173A276906DC4E83B67FB5D8C412E0@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: vmware.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Mar 2017 16:38:58.4928 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: b39138ca-3cee-4b4a-a4d6-cd83d9dd62f0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR05MB3012
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/BM87m8m9cdyfowBxGQHw_cKFkrY>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Review for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-10
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:39:03 -0000
Hi Jorge, Isn’t the end result is to clear any previous state that the receiving PE learned from the PE that’s advertising now P=B=0? I think having a PE send P=B=0 to be ignored by the receiving PE is not a good logic to start with, One can argue why send something that will be ignored anyway? I’m not sure I get what you mean by wrongly withdraw the route? we have to remove any previously learned state from the PE advertising P=B=0, so we can’t keep any previous routes, given that the new route with P=B=0 will implicitly withdraw the previous route, so why not say that the P=B=0 route should be treated as withdraw? Given the above, I am in favor of leaving the text as is. Thanks, Sami On 3/13/17, 8:24 AM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com> wrote: >Hi Acee and Sami, > >Thank you both for explaining, I think I now understand your point. >I thought the sentence had more to do with error handling at application level, hence my point that P=B=0 was a legitimate combination. > >I think the three of us agree that receiving an update with P=B=0 is an indication of relinquishing the DF or BDF role by the sender PE, when it previously sent different flags. However I think it would be clearer if we differentiate both cases: > >Update with P=B=1 -> invalid combination, treat as withdraw >Update with P=B=0 -> valid combination, clears previous DF/BDF indication from the sender PE > >Otherwise we give the impression that P=B=0 is invalid and implementations may wrongly withdraw the route, even at BGP level. > >Thank you. >Jorge > > >On 3/13/17, 3:46 PM, "Sami Boutros" <sboutros@vmware.com> wrote: > > Hi Jorge, > > The issue I see with ignoring the routes with P and B Flags clear is the following: > > What if a PE advertised P or B Flag set then decide to send P and B Flags clear, what should we do in that case? > > Ignore the P and B Flags clear route and keep the old P or B Flag set route, wouldn’t that be incorrect? > > Thanks, > > Sami > > > On 3/13/17, 6:04 AM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com> wrote: > > >Sami, > > > >About this one: > > > >“ 1. Why is receiving an extended community with both the P and B flags > >set treated as a withdrawal, while it is ignored for the case when both > >the P and B flags are clear? > > > >I agree both should be treated as a withdrawal, I will change the text.” > > > > > >[JORGE] Sami, please correct this: > > > >“If the PE receives a route with both B and P > > clear, it MUST treat the route as a withdrawal from the sender PE.” > > > >As you have in the following paragraph, flags P=B=0 is perfectly valid: > > > >“In multihoming single-active scenario for a given VPWS service > > instance, the DF election should result in the Primary-elected PE for > > the VPWS service instance advertising the P Flag set and the B Flag > > clear, the Backup elected PE should advertise the P Flag clear and > > the B Flag set, ****and the rest of the PEs in the same ES should signal > > both P and B Flags clear.****” > > > > > >Let me know if I’m missing something please. Don’t want to hold the progress, but this is important. > >Thank you. > >Jorge > > > > > > > >On 3/12/17, 8:24 PM, "Sami Boutros" <sboutros@vmware.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Acee, > > > > Please find attached document with all comments addresses, if all good will > > Submit before the cut-off tomorrow. > > > > Please see comments inline. > > On 3/12/17, 11:36 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > >Hi Sami, > > > > > >I think this version reads much better. I still have a couple comments and > > >questions. > > > > > > 1. Why is receiving an extended community with both the P and B flags > > >set treated as a withdrawal, while it is ignored for the case when both > > >the P and B flags are clear? > > > > I agree both should be treated as a withdrawal, I will change the text. > > > > > 2. A related question is if a route with both the P and B flags clear is > > >ignored, won’t this break DF election described on the bottom of page 8? > > >It says “the rest of the PEs in the same ES should single both the P and B > > >Flags clear.” > > > > The DF election is between the PE(s) attached to the ES and has nothing to do > > With the remote PE receiving the routes from the PE(s) attached to the ES. > > The remote PE expect to receive one route with P Flag set and another route > > With with B flag set from another PE, all other routes received from other PE(s) > > Attached to the same ES are not needed, and hence can be treated as withdrawal > > Of previous routes from those Pe(s). > > > > > > > > 3. Also, during DF election, is it implementation specific which backup > > >is chosen if multiple PEs advertise the B Flag set in their respective > > >extended communities? > > > > The DF election MUST always result in one Backup and One primary, however > > During transit more than one route with P or B Flags can be received. > > > > >Why isn’t it the last one similar to the primary PE > > >selection? > > > > Ok, to be consistent, will change the text to have the remote PE select the > > last advertising backup PE. > > > > > > > > 4. Both VID and VLAN ID are used in the document. I didn’t research this > > >but from the context it appears these are synonymous. If VID is used, I’d > > >also add it to the “Terminology” in 1.1. > > > > Ok. > > > > > > A few more Nits: > > >*** draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11.txt.orig 2017-03-12 13:56:46.000000000 > > >-0400 > > >--- draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11.txt 2017-03-12 14:34:06.000000000 -0400 > > >*************** > > >*** 153,163 **** > > > instance. As with the Ethernet Tag in standard EVPN, the VPWS service > > > instance identifier has uniqueness within an EVPN instance. > > > > > >! For EVPN routes, the Ethernet Tag ID are set to zero for Port-based, > > >! VLAN-based, and VLAN-bundle interface mode and it is set to non-zero > > >! Ethernet tag ID for VLAN-aware bundle mode. Conversely, for EVPN- > > > VPWS, the Ethernet tag ID in the Ethernet A-D route MUST be set to a > > >! non-zero value for all four service interface types. > > > > > > In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior, EVPN- > > > VPWS resembles the VLAN-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such that when > > >--- 153,163 ---- > > > instance. As with the Ethernet Tag in standard EVPN, the VPWS service > > > instance identifier has uniqueness within an EVPN instance. > > > > > >! For EVPN routes, the Ethernet Tag IDs are set to zero for Port-based, > > >! VLAN-based, and VLAN-bundle interface mode and set to non-zero > > >! Ethernet Tag IDs for VLAN-aware bundle mode. Conversely, for EVPN- > > > VPWS, the Ethernet tag ID in the Ethernet A-D route MUST be set to a > > >! non-zero value for all four service interface types. > > > > > > In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior, EVPN- > > > VPWS resembles the VLAN-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such that when > > >*************** > > >*** 181,188 **** > > > Ethernet frames are transported as is and the tags are not altered. > > > > > > The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the > > >! VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) for VxLAN encap, and this VNI may have > > >! a global scope or local scope per PE and may also be made equal to > > > the VPWS service instance identifier set in the Ethernet A-D route. > > > > > > The Ethernet Segment identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D per-EVI > > >--- 181,188 ---- > > > Ethernet frames are transported as is and the tags are not altered. > > > > > > The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the > > >! VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN encap, and this VNI may have > > >! a global scope or local scope per PE and may also be equal to > > > the VPWS service instance identifier set in the Ethernet A-D route. > > > > > > The Ethernet Segment identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D per-EVI > > >*************** > > >*** 312,321 **** > > > > > > 2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface > > > > > >! Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to VLAN- > > > based service interface (defined in section 2.1) and thus this > > > service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. In other words, if one > > >! tries to define data-plane and control plane behavior for this > > > service interface, one would realize that it is the same as that of > > > VLAN-based service. > > > > > >--- 312,321 ---- > > > > > > 2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface > > > > > >! Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to a VLAN- > > > based service interface (defined in section 2.1) and thus this > > > service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. In other words, if one > > >! tries to define data plane and control plane behavior for this > > > service interface, one would realize that it is the same as that of > > > VLAN-based service. > > > > > >*************** > > >*** 326,332 **** > > > signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is set to > > > the customer ES and the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to > > > the VPWS service instance identifier value. The VPWS service instance > > >! identifier value MAY be set to a 24-bit value, when 24-bit value is > > > used, it MUST be right aligned. For both EPL and EVPL services using > > > a given VPWS service instance, the pair of PEs instantiating that > > > VPWS service instance will each advertise a per-EVI Ethernet A-D > > >--- 326,332 ---- > > > signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is set to > > > the customer ES and the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to > > > the VPWS service instance identifier value. The VPWS service instance > > >! identifier value MAY be set to a 24-bit value and when a 24-bit value > > >is > > > used, it MUST be right aligned. For both EPL and EVPL services using > > > a given VPWS service instance, the pair of PEs instantiating that > > > VPWS service instance will each advertise a per-EVI Ethernet A-D > > >*************** > > >*** 354,361 **** > > > > > > 3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community > > > > > >! This draft proposes a new extended community [RFC4360], to be > > >! included with the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route. This attribute is > > > mandatory if multihoming is enabled. > > > > > > +------------------------------------+ > > >--- 354,361 ---- > > > > > > 3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community > > > > > >! This document defines an extended community [RFC4360], to be > > >! included with per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. This attribute is > > > mandatory if multihoming is enabled. > > > > > > +------------------------------------+ > > >*************** > > >*** 423,429 **** > > > > > > In a multihoming all-active scenario, there is no DF election, and > > > all the PEs in the ES that are active and ready to forward traffic > > >! to/from the CE will set the P Flag. A remote PE will do per-flow load > > > balancing to the PEs that set the P Flag for the same Ethernet Tag > > > and ESI. The B Flag in control flags SHOULD NOT be set in the > > > multihoming all-active scenario and MUST be ignored by receiving > > >--- 423,429 ---- > > > > > > In a multihoming all-active scenario, there is no DF election, and > > > all the PEs in the ES that are active and ready to forward traffic > > >! to/from the CE will set the P Flag. A remote PE will do per-flow load- > > > balancing to the PEs that set the P Flag for the same Ethernet Tag > > > and ESI. The B Flag in control flags SHOULD NOT be set in the > > > multihoming all-active scenario and MUST be ignored by receiving > > >*************** > > >*** 493,499 **** > > > > > > All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange per-EVI > > > Ethernet A-D routes, one route per VPWS service instance. For inter- > > >! AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes with NEXT_HOP > > > attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link > > > between the CE and the PE is either a C-tagged or S-tagged interface, > > > as described in [802.1Q], that can carry a single VLAN tag or two > > >--- 493,499 ---- > > > > > > All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange per-EVI > > > Ethernet A-D routes, one route per VPWS service instance. For inter- > > >! AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes with the NEXT_HOP > > > attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link > > > between the CE and the PE is either a C-tagged or S-tagged interface, > > > as described in [802.1Q], that can carry a single VLAN tag or two > > >*************** > > >*** 570,576 **** > > > Finally, EVPN may employ data plane egress link protection mechanisms > > > not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on local > > > AC down) using the label advertised in the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route > > >! by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to backup > > > PE. > > > > > > 6 Failure Scenarios > > >--- 570,576 ---- > > > Finally, EVPN may employ data plane egress link protection mechanisms > > > not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on local > > > AC down) using the label advertised in the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route > > >! by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to the > > >backup > > > PE. > > > > > > 6 Failure Scenarios > > >*************** > > >*** 592,600 **** > > > For a faster convergence in multi-homed scenarios with either Single- > > > Active Redundancy or All-active redundancy, a mass withdraw technique > > > is used. A PE previously advertising a per-ES Ethernet A-D route, can > > >! withdraw this route signaling to the remote PEs to switch all the > > > VPWS service instances associated with this multi-homed ES to the > > >! backup PE > > > > > > 7 Acknowledgements > > > > > >--- 592,600 ---- > > > For a faster convergence in multi-homed scenarios with either Single- > > > Active Redundancy or All-active redundancy, a mass withdraw technique > > > is used. A PE previously advertising a per-ES Ethernet A-D route, can > > >! withdraw this route by signaling to the remote PEs to switch all the > > > VPWS service instances associated with this multi-homed ES to the > > >! backup PE. > > > > > > 7 Acknowledgements > > > > Thanks, > > > > Sami > > > > > > > > >
- [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Review for draft-ie… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Review for draf… Sami Boutros
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Review for draf… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Review for draf… Sami Boutros
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [bess] Routing Directorate Review f… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Review for draf… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [bess] Routing Directorate Review f… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Review for draf… Sami Boutros
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Review for draf… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Review for draf… Sami Boutros
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [bess] Routing Directorate Review f… Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [bess] Routing Directorate Review f… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)