Skip to main content

Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-21

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility@ietf.org, gunter@vandevelde.cc, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, slitkows.ietf@gmail.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-21.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extended Mobility Procedures for EVPN-IRB'
  (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility-21.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the BGP Enabled ServiceS Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and John
Scudder.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-extended-mobility/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   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.

  
Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Consensus was clear on the draft with support from people from various
affiliations. The document was updated multiple times as per WG comments.
There was no particular controversy. WG commented the draft that was updated
accordingly.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

There are at least two known implementations of the draft.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Stephane Litkowski. The
   Responsible Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde.

IANA Note

  IANA OK - No Actions Needed

RFC Editor Note