* 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: Alia Atlas, Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard | 2014-Oct-17 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-100 bess minutes

Session 2017-11-17 0930-1130: Sophia - Audio stream - bess chatroom

Minutes

minutes-100-bess-00 minutes



          WG Status
          chairs, 10min
          
          ALi (on inter-subnet-forwarding): still planning to update it. Might be
          no sooner than January
          
          Adrian: Yang model for representing L2VPN service developed in
          L2SM. Reaching completion. Seeking for reviews
          especially from operators, but vendors welcome. It is not how we build
          the service but how we describe it.
          
          draft-liu-bess-mvpn-yang-05
          Yisong Liu, 10min
          
          Sue (idr chair hat on): have you looked at BGP model
          
          Yisong: no. we followed network instance model
          
          Sue: will send you some pointers
          
          Sue (to BESS chairs): worth looking at tunneling part as we've progress
          on that in IDR
          
          Martin: will look into that.
          
          Stephane: are you augmenting L3VPN model or new hierarchy.
          
          Ysong: started as such but feel it is too tied.
          
          Stephane: in my view mvpn is l3vpn+mcast
          
          
          draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-00
          Jeffrey, 10min
          
          Chairs: who have read? Approx 10p
          
          
          draft-zzhang-bess-bgp-multicast-controller-00
          Jeffrey, 10min
          
          Jeff T.: we have BGP free cores for last 15 years, do you now expect to
          run BGP on every P router?
          
          Jeffrey: true for unicast. But BGP is popular and would be lightweight
          for mcast
          
          Jeff: still, you'd have to use BGP everywhere
          
          Jeffrey: true. Not ideal for those not wishing to deploy BGP everywhere
          
          Ali, you still have a tree in the core. you only address two of the
          three concerns you've listed at the begining.
          For IP I see the beneift. For MPLS I am not convinved.
          
          Jeffrey: agree, but there are operators which really want that.
          
          Ali, but that's an interim solution until we have BIER, ins't it?
          
          Jeffrey: yes
          
          Ali: you should clarify this in the draft
          
          Jeffrey: we have some text but indeed.
          
          
          draft-lin-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-04
          Jeffrey, 20min
          
          ?: how do you decide whther you need to send to source BD or supplementary
          BD?
          
          Jeffrey: procedure is described in the draft
          
          ?: and in case of P2MP tunnel?
          
          Jeffrey: same. in interest of time we can discuss offline
          
          ?: but do you send one or two copies?
          
          Jeffrey: one
          
          Jorge (as co-author): document is mature. I agree it's ready for
          adoption.
          natural evolution of current evpn solution for unciast. will make
          deployment of l3vpn mcast very simple
          
          Ali (as co-author): definitly great improvement. would be nice to give
          some time to people to read latest rev before adoption
          
          Martin: who has read? out of these who thinks it's ready? same number,
          maybe minus 1
          
          
          draft-rabadan-sajassi-bess-evpn-ipvpn-interworking-00
          Jorge, 15min
          
          ?: regarding gateway PE, have you considered the UC where they are share
          between multiple domains?
          
          Jorge: draft supports that UCs, simply not described.
          
          
          draft-skr-bess-evpn-pim-proxy-01
          Jorge, 5min
          
          ?: There is this draft and another one about Route Types 6 and 7. Why
          two drafts for the same Route Types?
          
          Ali & Jorge: same route types indeed but different applications.
          
          
          draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-00
          Neeraj, 10min
          
          Jorge: useful document. On BUM traffic we agreed on the way forward.
          Regarding Link BW Extended Community it was defined as non transitive.
          But we need to think about inter-AS
          
          Ali: DF election goes through AS, so it should be transitive
          
          Jeff: [missed]
          
          Jeffrey: not sure how you can guaranty the proportion with flows
          
          Neeraj: load balancing per flow is never exact indeed
          
          Stephane: Link BW is the good solution indeed. We need to respin that
          draft.
          
          Himanshu: if multiple remote PEs, how do you coordinate from ingress?
          
          Neeraj: I don't see a problem here.
          
          Himanshu: I disagree
          
          Ali: can you clarify that mice and elephant flows are outside the scope
          of the draft.
          
          Stephane (in reply to Himanshu): this is distributed control. you can't
          acheive the same than in case of centralized.
          
          
          draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-01
          Neeraj, 5min
          
          no question
          
          



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