* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Bess Status Pages

BGP Enabled ServiceS (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas, Deborah Brungard | 2014-Oct-17 —  

IETF-99 bess minutes

Session 2017-07-20 1550-1750: Congress Hall I - Audio stream - bess chatroom


minutes-99-bess-00 minutes

          BESS @ IETF99
          WG Status
          Martin (as chair): status of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding
          following WG LC?
          Ali: almost 70% comments incorporated, rest to come soon.
          MIBs update
          Jeffrey H.: do not add BGP rate information in your MIBs
          Tsuno: OK
          Wim H.: BGP SR-TE policy is another solution
          Adrian F.: but not the way we would do this
          Wim: but you have more options possible for TE in other draft
          Adrian: need to look at it in the context of new spring draft
          Jeffrey H.: SR-TE policy document is potentially usable in context
          presented here, but not fully
          Wim: if you use binding SID representing the DC on the other side,
          you acheive the same thing
          Wim: we need to look into these two documents to avoid competing
          Ali: Should SPRING document progress before that one?
          Martin (as chair): how many have read this document? Approx 10
          Yang (draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model and L2, L3, and EVPN yangs models)
          Lou/Acee, Patrice, Dhanendra, 15min
          Himanshu: There was a PW yang model presentation in PALS. Maybe there
          is a need for coordination/consolidation.
          no question/comment
          Greg: control plane solution for NVO3 or for Geneve
          Sami: Geneve only as this is selected solution by NVO3
          Ali: there is also a draft for VXLAN
          Jorge: if you propose specific/new bits here, they first need to be
          approved in NVO3
          Ali: draft is too verbose for what it proposes, can be condensed.
          Jorge: we felt 7432 wasn't clear enough
          Satya: Are AC 3 and 4 on same Ethernet Segment
          Jorge: different, because no loop if on the same.
          Stig V.: We have many options in PIM, why a fixed model here?
          Jorge: we only have selected those that we need / felt were important
          for the use-case.
          Stig V.: not sure you want to go into dense mode.
          Niloofar / Ali
          Jorge: lot's of things not explained yet in the document
          Ali: not holes, but let's discuss these
          Jorge (on multi-homed CE): if a source is behind switch and received
          behind PE3, because of all-active MH, mcast traffic can be hashed to PE1
          how to make sure PE3 picks the correct PE (PE1, not PE2)
          Ali: because we do it via source active discovery
          Jorge: how do you discover the source
          Ali: same way as EVPN
          Jeffrey Z.: caveats in the solution
          Ali: we'll describe what is not covered
          Ali, 10min
          Jorge: PLan to incmlude RT5 for mass withdraw? Would be nice to have it.
          Ali: ok
          Satya: you assume the L2 and L3 RT are different?
          Ali: the EVI are different.
          no question/comment
          no time for question
          Kaliraj (remote)
          no question/comment
          presentation not done because of time consummed by other presentations.

Generated from PyHt script /wg/bess/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -