Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-21
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-12-13
|
21 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2024-12-11
|
21 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2024-12-11
|
21 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2024-12-11
|
21 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2024-12-11
|
21 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2024-12-11
|
21 | (System) | Removed all action holders (IESG state changed) |
2024-12-11
|
21 | Jenny Bui | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2024-12-11
|
21 | Jenny Bui | IESG has approved the document |
2024-12-11
|
21 | Jenny Bui | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2024-12-11
|
21 | Jenny Bui | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-12-11
|
21 | Jenny Bui | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-12-11
|
21 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2024-12-05
|
21 | Jenny Bui | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2024-12-05
|
21 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS. The new revision helps my understanding of the spec quite a lot! |
2024-12-05
|
21 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] Position for John Scudder has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2024-12-04
|
21 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] I support John's DISCUSS. |
2024-12-04
|
21 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2024-12-04
|
21 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2024-12-04
|
21 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-21.txt |
2024-12-04
|
21 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-12-04
|
21 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2024-12-04
|
21 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2024-12-04
|
20 | John Scudder | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for this document. I found it relatively easy to read and understand; I appreciate the effort that must have gone into making … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for this document. I found it relatively easy to read and understand; I appreciate the effort that must have gone into making it so. That being said, I do have one major concern I would like to DISCUSS. I suspect it will be relatively easy to resolve. I also have several comments I hope you'll consider. ## DISCUSS ### SYNC Throughout the document, you reference SYNC, e.g., in Section 5.3, "Local and SYNC route learning can occur..." I couldn't find a definition of what you mean by "SYNC route learning" (and similar) anywhere. There are some terms in the terminology section that define "SYNC XXX" but those definitions are not very useful if I don't know what "SYNC" is, and I don't. If SYNC is a term defined elsewhere in the EVPN document set, please provide a reference. If it's supposed to be obvious to the reader... it wasn't obvious to this reader, and I tried. I think this needs to be addressed for this document to be clear. As a less important point, why is SYNC capitalized as if it were an acronym (or RFC 2119 keyword)? If it's not an acronym, and if it's not already a term that's well-established in some existing RFC and too late to change, then I implore you to consider revising it to something that is LESS SHOUTY. That aspect of it isn't DISCUSS-worthy but since I was talking about SYNC here anyway I figured it was a good place to mention it. ### Section 6.4, REMOTE SYNC Upon receiving a REMOTE SYNC, the corresponding local MAC Mx (if REMOTE SYNC is capitalized as if it were a specific term the reader is expected to understand. I don't see it defined anywhere. It's not obvious to me. Also, the same minor point about ALL CAPS applies here. |
2024-12-04
|
20 | John Scudder | [Ballot comment] ## COMMENT ### Throughout, IP and MAC Like Éric Vyncke, I find the use of "IP" to mean "IP address" and "MAC" to … [Ballot comment] ## COMMENT ### Throughout, IP and MAC Like Éric Vyncke, I find the use of "IP" to mean "IP address" and "MAC" to mean "MAC address" mildly distasteful, and I suggest you consider using the full names throughout. If you don't want to cut a new version to do this, you could request the RFC Editor help you with it. In a few cases it rises beyond just an aesthetic problem -- in some cases, for example, you use "MAC" to mean "MAC address" and in others, you seem to use it to mean "MAC route". Not using the full name can create ambiguity. A specific example of this is the final bullet of Section 6.8 which talks about "local MAC age-out". My initial assumption was that you were talking about aging out an ARP or ND cache entry, but then you have a sentence that contradicts that assumption. I'm left with the guess that you must mean "MAC route". I hope this helps illustrate that this problem is not only personal preference but impacts clarity. ### Section 2, consider alphabetizing I see that this section is organized sort-of topically, but overall I think it would be more valuable if alphabetized. ### Section 2, Data Center? Your definition of "EVPN PE" makes it specific to data centers. As far as I know, EVPN is far from being limited to data centers. Consider rewriting this to generalize. ### Section 2, LAG Please define LAG. You could do it inline instead of adding a definition, if you want. ### Section 3.3, MC-LAG Please expand or reference MC-LAG. ### Section 5.2, N+1, or max(N+1, M+1)? In such cases, a host-IP move to a different physical server results in the IP moving to a new MAC binding. A new MAC-IP route resulting from this move must be advertised with a sequence number higher than the previous MAC-IP route for this IP, advertised from the prior location. For example, consider a route Mx-IPx currently advertised with sequence number N from PE1. If IPx moves to a new physical server behind PE2 and is associated with MAC Mz, the new local Mz-IPx route must be advertised with a sequence number higher than N and the previous Mz sequence number M. This allows PE devices, including PE1, PE2, and other remote PE devices, to determine and program the most recent MAC binding and reachability for the IP. PE1, upon receiving this new Mz-IPx route with sequence number N+1, would ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ update IPx reachability via PE2 for symmetric IRB and update IPx's ARP/NDP binding to Mz for asymmetric IRB, while clearing and withdrawing the stale Mx-IPx route with the lower sequence number. Shouldn't the marked text be "sequence number N+1 or M+1, whichever is greater"? ### Section 8.2.1, SHOULD or MUST? A MAC-IP route SHOULD be treated as duplicate if either: * The corresponding MAC route is marked as duplicate via the existing detection procedure. * The corresponding IP is marked as duplicate via the extended procedure described above. The SHOULD implies that one of the listed conditions might exist, but it's still OK to *not* treat the route as duplicate. What is an example of a case where it's fine not to treat the route as a dup? Put differently, why isn't this a MUST? ### Section 8.3, intuition duplicate MAC detection procedures specified in [RFC7432] can be applied intuitively to IP-only host routes for duplicate IP detection. In our specifications, we should never be asking the reader to intuit what the right thing to do is! A perfect specification requires no intuition at all, because it's so precise. So when I saw this, I was concerned. Maybe what you meant was something like "procedures similar to the duplicate MAC detection procedures specified in [RFC7432] can be applied, with the necessary changes, to IP-only host routes for duplicate IP detection, as follows:" Is that right? Please reassure me you are not expecting the implementor to go with their gut. :-) ### Section 9, sequence number consumption Thank you for addressing the increased rate of sequence number consumption. Am I correct that there is no serious concern about sequence number wrap, or the consequences of wrap, either because the underlying EVPN mechanisms deal with it smoothly, or because you have evaluated that sequence wrap is still low-probability? |
2024-12-04
|
20 | John Scudder | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for John Scudder |
2024-12-04
|
20 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2024-12-04
|
20 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Joseph D. Touch for the TSVART review. A comment - rather than saying "None" is … [Ballot comment] Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Joseph D. Touch for the TSVART review. A comment - rather than saying "None" is IANA consideration, can we write - "No IANA actions required" as suggested at https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration ? |
2024-12-04
|
20 | Zaheduzzaman Sarker | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker |
2024-12-03
|
20 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-20.txt |
2024-12-03
|
20 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-12-03
|
20 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2024-12-03
|
20 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2024-12-03
|
19 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot comment] note all the RFC references are done using the ascii text (eg "[RFC7432]") instead of using proper xml links |
2024-12-03
|
19 | Paul Wouters | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters |
2024-12-03
|
19 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Thank you for this document, and to Susan Hares for the OpsDir review - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18-opsdir-lc-hares-2024-11-16/ Thanks also for addressing her review comments. The … [Ballot comment] Thank you for this document, and to Susan Hares for the OpsDir review - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18-opsdir-lc-hares-2024-11-16/ Thanks also for addressing her review comments. The Shepherd Writeup (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility/shepherdwriteup/) notes the 6 authors, and the Responsible AD has concurred. |
2024-12-03
|
19 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2024-12-03
|
19 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot comment] Thank you to Robert Sparks for the secdir review. It appears that some of his recommendations have been acted on. I do agree … [Ballot comment] Thank you to Robert Sparks for the secdir review. It appears that some of his recommendations have been acted on. I do agree that the diagrams aren't all that useful and could be eliminated without loss of clarity. |
2024-12-03
|
19 | Deb Cooley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deb Cooley |
2024-12-02
|
19 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thanks for quickly addressing my previous DISCUSS points and the other points below. For archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/j0KECf_TNvyvLHFpgdCT_kA3eD8/ ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Number of authors … [Ballot comment] Thanks for quickly addressing my previous DISCUSS points and the other points below. For archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/j0KECf_TNvyvLHFpgdCT_kA3eD8/ ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Number of authors The explanation for six authors appears sensible, i.e., let's allow this exception. ### Unicast Should the document specify that it works only for unicast IP/MAC addresses ? Or is it implicit in EVPN anyway? ### Section 1 Consider using MADINAS drafts / use case as a reference for randomized and changing MAC addresses (while keeping the IP addresses). In the same vein, consider adding a reference to RFC 8981 (for changing IPv6 addresses). I.e., this I-D is far more generic than only VM. I find the use of the term 'moving' weird in this section as the 'move' is not always a physical move (change of PE) but rather a new IP associated to an existing MAC (RFC 8981), or is this 'move' not covered by this document ? Consider adding references to `MPLS, SRv6, NVO Tunnel*s*` ? ### Section 2 In 2024, I would prefer s/ARP references in this document are equally applicable to ND as well./NDP references in this document are equally applicable to ARP as well./ and having this document only using NDP in the text. ### Section 3.2.2.2 s/all host IPs learned/all host IP addresses learned/ s/A host IP move/A host IP address move/ This oversimplification happens in several places, i.e., I won't mention all of the occurences ;) ### Section 5.1 Like Brian noted in this int-dir review, should the impact of this seq num inheritance on the seq num wrapping be described ? Section 6 is also silent on this case. ## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) ### Use of SVG graphics Suggest to use the "aasvg" for nicer rendering on HTML ;-) ### Section 6.6 s/explcit knowledge/explicit knowledge/ |
2024-12-02
|
19 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Éric Vyncke has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2024-12-02
|
19 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2024-12-02
|
19 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-19.txt |
2024-12-02
|
19 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-12-02
|
19 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2024-12-02
|
19 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2024-12-02
|
18 | Orie Steele | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Orie Steele |
2024-12-02
|
18 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot comment] Thank you for this document. Couple of comments: Abstract: I am having trouble phasing the first sentence of the Abstract. The text says: … [Ballot comment] Thank you for this document. Couple of comments: Abstract: I am having trouble phasing the first sentence of the Abstract. The text says: This document specifies extensions to Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) procedures specified in RFC7432 and RFC9135 to enhance the mobility mechanisms for EVPN IRB-based networks. Are the extensions for both EVPN and IRB procedures or just IRB procedures. It seems like the latter. If that is the case, then only RFC9135 is relevant and not RFC7432 (which should be removed from the text). In addition, you use both 'EVPN IRB' and 'EVPN-IRB' terms interchangeably so please pick one and use it throughout the document. Section 2: * Overlay: L3 and L2 Virtual Private Network (VPN) enabled via NVO, SRv6, or MPLS service layer encapsulation. Please provide references and expand acronyms for NVO and SRv6 as neither of these are well-known terms defined here -> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list |
2024-12-02
|
18 | Jim Guichard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jim Guichard |
2024-12-02
|
18 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot discuss] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-05 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below one … [Ballot discuss] # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-avtcore-rtp-scip-05 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Stéphane Litkowski for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. Other thanks to Brian Haberman, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2022-11-17/ (and it seems that the authors have not yet replied to Brian's review) I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## DISCUSS (blocking) As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is just a request to have a discussion on the following topics: ### Section 1 What about IPv6 NDP in `the IP address is incorporated into the local ARP table` ? The "equivalence" ARP-NDP only appears in section 2. Just use "in the local NDP/ARP tables" to address this point. |
2024-12-02
|
18 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Number of authors The explanation for six authors appears sensible, i.e., let's allow this exception. ### Unicast Should the … [Ballot comment] ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Number of authors The explanation for six authors appears sensible, i.e., let's allow this exception. ### Unicast Should the document specify that it works only for unicast IP/MAC addresses ? Or is it implicit in EVPN anyway? ### Section 1 Consider using MADINAS drafts / use case as a reference for randomized and changing MAC addresses (while keeping the IP addresses). In the same vein, consider adding a reference to RFC 8981 (for changing IPv6 addresses). I.e., this I-D is far more generic than only VM. I find the use of the term 'moving' weird in this section as the 'move' is not always a physical move (change of PE) but rather a new IP associated to an existing MAC (RFC 8981), or is this 'move' not covered by this document ? Consider adding references to `MPLS, SRv6, NVO Tunnel*s*` ? ### Section 2 In 2024, I would prefer s/ARP references in this document are equally applicable to ND as well./NDP references in this document are equally applicable to ARP as well./ and having this document only using NDP in the text. ### Section 3.2.2.2 s/all host IPs learned/all host IP addresses learned/ s/A host IP move/A host IP address move/ This oversimplification happens in several places, i.e., I won't mention all of the occurences ;) ### Section 5.1 Like Brian noted in this int-dir review, should the impact of this seq num inheritance on the seq num wrapping be described ? Section 6 is also silent on this case. ## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) ### Use of SVG graphics Suggest to use the "aasvg" for nicer rendering on HTML ;-) ### Section 6.6 s/explcit knowledge/explicit knowledge/ |
2024-12-02
|
18 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2024-12-01
|
18 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments … [Ballot comment] # Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18 CC @ekline * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Comments ### __general__ * Is "ARP learning" throughout specifically ARP-only, or can it be read as "ARP/ND learning"? If the latter, should the text be updated? ## Nits ### S2 * "specied" -> "specified" |
2024-12-01
|
18 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2024-11-22
|
18 | Brian Haberman | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Brian Haberman. Sent review to list. |
2024-11-21
|
18 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Telechat review by INTDIR is assigned to Brian Haberman |
2024-11-21
|
18 | Éric Vyncke | Requested Telechat review by INTDIR |
2024-11-20
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-12-05 |
2024-11-20
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | Ballot has been issued |
2024-11-20
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Gunter Van de Velde |
2024-11-20
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | Created "Approve" ballot |
2024-11-20
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2024-11-20
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | Ballot writeup was changed |
2024-11-19
|
18 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2024-11-18
|
18 | David Dong | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. For definitions of IANA review states, please see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review Thank you, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist |
2024-11-18
|
18 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2024-11-18
|
18 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list. |
2024-11-16
|
18 | Susan Hares | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Susan Hares. Sent review to list. |
2024-11-12
|
18 | Stewart Bryant | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stewart Bryant. Sent review to list. |
2024-11-08
|
18 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Susan Hares |
2024-11-07
|
18 | Joseph Touch | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joseph Touch. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2024-11-07
|
18 | Joseph Touch | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joseph Touch. |
2024-11-07
|
18 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Joseph Touch |
2024-11-07
|
18 | Magnus Westerlund | Assignment of request for Last Call review by TSVART to Vidhi Goel was rejected |
2024-11-07
|
18 | Ron Bonica | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Ron Bonica was rejected |
2024-11-07
|
18 | Carlos Pignataro | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Ron Bonica |
2024-11-07
|
18 | Magnus Westerlund | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Vidhi Goel |
2024-11-07
|
18 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2024-11-04
|
18 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef was rejected |
2024-10-31
|
18 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2024-10-30
|
18 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Stewart Bryant |
2024-10-29
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2024-10-29
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-11-19): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, slitkows.ietf@gmail.com … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-11-19): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, slitkows.ietf@gmail.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to consider the following document: - 'Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-11-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies extensions to Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Integrated Routing and Bridging (IRB) procedures specified in RFC7432 and RFC9135 to enhance the mobility mechanisms for EVPN IRB-based networks. The proposed extensions improve the handling of host mobility and duplicate address detection in EVPN-IRB networks to cover a broader set of scenarios where host IP to MAC bindings may change across moves. These enhancements address limitations in the existing EVPN IRB mobility procedures by providing more efficient and scalable solutions. The extensions are backward compatible with existing EVPN IRB implementations and aim to optimize network performance in scenarios involving frequent IP address mobility. NOTE TO IESG (TO BE DELETED BEFORE PUBLISHING): This draft lists six authors which is above the required limit of five. Given significant and active contributions to the draft from all six authors over the course of six years, we would like to request IESG to allow publication with six authors. Specifically, the three Cisco authors are the original inventors of these procedures and contributed heavily to rev 0 draft, most of which is still intact. AT&T is also a key contributor towards defining the use cases that this document addresses as well as the proposed solution. Authors from Nokia and Juniper have further contributed to revisions and discussions steadily over last six years to enable respective implementations and a wider adoption. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/3024/ |
2024-10-29
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2024-10-29
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | Last call announcement was changed |
2024-10-29
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | Last call was requested |
2024-10-29
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | Last call announcement was generated |
2024-10-29
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | Ballot approval text was generated |
2024-10-29
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | Ballot writeup was generated |
2024-10-29
|
18 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2024-10-16
|
18 | (System) | Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (IESG state changed) |
2024-10-16
|
18 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed |
2024-10-16
|
18 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-18.txt |
2024-10-16
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-10-16
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2024-10-16
|
18 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2024-08-06
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/grbMFV4Acirc5tLylxR5aD8wDaA/ |
2024-08-06
|
17 | (System) | Changed action holders to Ali Sajassi, John Drake, Jorge Rabadan, Aparna Pattekar, Neeraj Malhotra, Avinash Lingala (IESG state changed) |
2024-08-06
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2024-07-29
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2024-07-29
|
17 | Gunter Van de Velde | Changed action holders to Gunter Van de Velde (Update Responsible AD) |
2024-03-20
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Gunter Van de Velde |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Stephane Litkowski | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Consensus was clear on the draft with support from people from various affiliations. The document was updated multiple times as per WG comments. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was no particular controversy. WG commented the draft that was updated accordingly. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There are at least two known implementations of the draft. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. No, it's focus is EVPN. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. N/A ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? After review and updates, the document is clear and can move forward. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The draft look to be compliant and not matching such issue. Early RTGDIR review has been requested and comments were addressed. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed standard is the proper type as the document proposes new procedures that will require interoperability. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. IPR poll was done at WG adoption and WGLC. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. There are currently 6 authors. All authors have actively contributed on either building the use case or the solution proposed. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) No more nits 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References look OK. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? N/A 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. N/A 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? N/A 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). No IANA action required. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No IANA action required. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Stephane Litkowski | Responsible AD changed to Andrew Alston |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Stephane Litkowski | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Stephane Litkowski | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Stephane Litkowski | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Stephane Litkowski | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? Consensus was clear on the draft with support from people from various affiliations. The document was updated multiple times as per WG comments. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was no particular controversy. WG commented the draft that was updated accordingly. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There are at least two known implementations of the draft. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. No, it's focus is EVPN. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? N/A 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. N/A ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? After review and updates, the document is clear and can move forward. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? The draft look to be compliant and not matching such issue. Early RTGDIR review has been requested and comments were addressed. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed standard is the proper type as the document proposes new procedures that will require interoperability. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. IPR poll was done at WG adoption and WGLC. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. There are currently 6 authors. All authors have actively contributed on either building the use case or the solution proposed. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) No more nits 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References look OK. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? N/A 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. N/A 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? N/A 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No 20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). No IANA action required. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No IANA action required. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-17.txt |
2023-10-16
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-10-16
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-10-16
|
17 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-11
|
16 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-16.txt |
2023-10-11
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-10-11
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-10-11
|
16 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-10-06
|
15 | Stephane Litkowski | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2023-10-06
|
15 | Stephane Litkowski | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2023-10-06
|
15 | Stephane Litkowski | Notification list changed to slitkows.ietf@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-10-06
|
15 | Stephane Litkowski | Document shepherd changed to Stephane Litkowski |
2023-10-06
|
15 | Stephane Litkowski | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2023-09-20
|
15 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-15.txt |
2023-09-20
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-09-20
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-09-20
|
15 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-09-19
|
14 | Stephane Litkowski | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2023-09-19
|
14 | Stephane Litkowski | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-08-31
|
14 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-14.txt |
2023-08-31
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-31
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-08-31
|
14 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-21
|
13 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-13.txt |
2023-08-21
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-21
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-08-21
|
13 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-15
|
12 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-12.txt |
2023-08-15
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-15
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-08-15
|
12 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-08-01
|
11 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-11.txt |
2023-08-01
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-08-01
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-08-01
|
11 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-07-17
|
10 | Donald Eastlake | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. Submission of review completed at an earlier date. |
2023-07-17
|
10 | Donald Eastlake | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake. |
2023-07-09
|
10 | Haomian Zheng | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake |
2023-06-30
|
10 | Stephane Litkowski | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2023-06-01
|
10 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-10.txt |
2023-06-01
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-06-01
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2023-06-01
|
10 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2023-06-01
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-11-28
|
09 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-09.txt |
2022-11-28
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-11-28
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2022-11-28
|
09 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-21
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-04-19
|
08 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-08.txt |
2022-04-19
|
08 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Neeraj Malhotra) |
2022-04-19
|
08 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2022-04-05
|
07 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-10-02
|
07 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-07.txt |
2021-10-02
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-02
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2021-10-02
|
07 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2021-10-02
|
06 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-06.txt |
2021-10-02
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-10-02
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2021-10-02
|
06 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2021-09-16
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-03-15
|
05 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-05.txt |
2021-03-15
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-03-15
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ali Sajassi , Aparna Pattekar , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra , bess-chairs@ietf.org |
2021-03-15
|
05 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2021-02-11
|
04 | Stephane Litkowski | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2021-02-11
|
04 | Stephane Litkowski | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2021-02-11
|
04 | Stephane Litkowski | This document now replaces draft-malhotra-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility instead of None |
2021-01-18
|
04 | Stephane Litkowski | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2020-10-27
|
04 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-04.txt |
2020-10-27
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-10-27
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: John Drake , Ali Sajassi , Avinash Lingala , Aparna Pattekar , Jorge Rabadan , Neeraj Malhotra |
2020-10-27
|
04 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-16
|
03 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-03.txt |
2020-05-16
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-05-16
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neeraj Malhotra , Aparna Pattekar , John Drake , Jorge Rabadan , Ali Sajassi , Avinash Lingala |
2020-05-16
|
03 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-05
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-11-02
|
02 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-02.txt |
2019-11-02
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-11-02
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Aparna Pattekar , Neeraj Malhotra , Ali Sajassi |
2019-11-02
|
02 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-19
|
01 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-01.txt |
2019-06-19
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-19
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Aparna Pattekar , Neeraj Malhotra , Ali Sajassi |
2019-06-19
|
01 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-27
|
00 | Neeraj Malhotra | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-00.txt |
2019-03-27
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-27
|
00 | Neeraj Malhotra | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Jorge Rabadan , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Aparna Pattekar , Neeraj Malhotra , Ali … Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Jorge Rabadan , Avinash Lingala , John Drake , Aparna Pattekar , Neeraj Malhotra , Ali Sajassi |
2019-03-27
|
00 | Neeraj Malhotra | Uploaded new revision |