Skip to main content

Minutes IETF112: bess

Meeting Minutes BGP Enabled ServiceS (bess) WG
Title Minutes IETF112: bess
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2021-11-25


Working Group Status
 - 4 RFC since last IETF published.
 - 1 document in RFC queue
 - draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa authors need to address all the comments.
 - Luc (7432 bis update)
       - new update to draft based on comments from different WG members.
       - added es-import RT auto derivation
       - updated flow label description

 - l2 EVPN inter op scenarios added.
 - Jorge - bits need to be updated from draft since they are used already.
         - OISM draft also defines procedure for inter op.
   Kesvan - We did take look and both draft handling different problem
   statement. with respect to bits we will update it.

Haibo - agree with your proposal. There was a draft of the same scenario before,
   named bess-evpn-frr-label, perhaps we may go further on that scenario.
Luc - will connect offline .
Wen : EVPN FRR for non EVPN traffic with special label. there was drft
presented few IETF ago. This draft also need to
      consider VLAN aware bundle service. Label allocation scheme needs to be
Luc : We left it out for now. will be updated in next revision.
Wen lin : We need to avoid different forwarding scheme in Egress PE .
Luc : will take offline .

 - Rev05 published on Oct 2020 which was merged version .
 - main changes are addition of section 4 (SA and key management) and section 5
 (IPsec database generation). - ready for adoption call
Susan : thanks for merging two draft. how much dependency BGP security gets
added by this draft. what is base requirement for this draft. Ali - BGP
security is base rquirement for draft.

Ali - This is enhancing RFC-9104 to connect two domains. this extends to
connect multiple domains. Jorge - Yes

 - document ready for adoption

 - 0th version of draft. comments are welcom.
Ali - You did not cover the redundancy in presentation where there are multiple
gateways and DF election.
      does draft covers it ?
Jeffery - its already covered in based draft.
Ali - Put short section on this
Jeffery - Sure

 - comments are appriciated. Draft being presented after some IETF

 - draft defines SRv6 based BGP service capability
 - feedback and comments are appriciated

Jorge - You are extending MAC mobality EC, how ever RFC9047 defines new EC that
is special for ARP and neighbor discovery.
        why did we not use that ?
Pascal - can you please send mail and take it offline. please take look at
existing draft and see how compatibilities would
         be handled. new proposal is appreciated.

 - Greg : its not clear how BFD control messages are encapsulated. is it same
 as traffic or something else.
   Haibo: We will describe it in future revision.
   Greg : BFD can not differentiate between path failure or node failure.