Re: [bess] a question about bundled service in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Thu, 20 July 2017 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7B1127342; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eSMZ8cfREuYt; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22d.google.com (mail-qk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0FA6131B7F; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id y126so14734522qke.4; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=1NK8vlWfvJ+HZRM8rKN1o1n5jCcuKM3baORLYoRM4yM=; b=MDJ9gQdJS5rJK1QUhEQjd6yrIwTxJXGKYpAkmnhlOiGgk7VPq8Y9z9jmei4yzqa8i7 FsOCZGOjWA6J6OY0Q2LiKaOK9C26s8BNdnXucInyxpJMwdNl9v8ysnss+C3CRzLDGly2 KKalylyPkr6j0qhbeIB1tOfmSZq0s/rfpowjA6QUQYWDx35Uojn4cBsSFiCNic69rL5a e9+rP3mODpWUZJp3bXyuz7xx1nXwRV4JzSYs9gWNQwz5CgMhGTJ3UUkn2NWQZWwvUJML dZRa0B+Vrwph9t+4wZfwVOEWyGQErNLiIzhr/+vPGZnzPOJvU02XEEN79Z771DmRZPfi ie8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1NK8vlWfvJ+HZRM8rKN1o1n5jCcuKM3baORLYoRM4yM=; b=IA9IEmehMP86ZEfCP4JY/VCmdxWsrNlSLXHiFNsjCdZboK3ZoCupA/Xn57SNZPOakZ +R1pgLCh3reHWUGA4l0vK45ALDKXKfFWTzOVMum94CyTgi9rGgbIwxAiSDTW+hI4YZk5 xZvm7M+7KIFqkSwFFDUNGWbVC6U0l9YG6ImmbAogiMCStt1U0ZO2Zg/KYnDXZOh0+HlS k3bQp0KWhk1I/3oW7EPnPptKUaIabs/zyk/BqvBpKhKJXybA4AaBN9Qje+YMXs1brfuH OUpDNNIzzMGn6AOIHIlBPNZad48tKQp6o3PtbEAuP7J8chEGIlBQkY1BnKGknLCNQ2Lq ryjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113dMjZ3V0rKuyOfX1m/XVsZCc2BGuzq26tSeADfRe3QWBTt65Uz fTvTtOUWmKGPg3pqaqM5h2Wq+S0YCIqc
X-Received: by 10.55.70.76 with SMTP id t73mr6213328qka.41.1500576087772; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: ghanwani@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.51.38 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D595C2B0.213DB5%sajassi@cisco.com>
References: <CA+-tSzwAfZZ8EyvVbXxxZgWesS_P0jSwjvcSKjT7N76iBnzhUQ@mail.gmail.com> <D594D20D.2138C0%sajassi@cisco.com> <CA+-tSzywX3t_pMj7b4k2xq=iYbAtMxYCoR4Spj63O=_perZivw@mail.gmail.com> <D595C2B0.213DB5%sajassi@cisco.com>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:41:27 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: UWHfTMfkGDN_k7FillLVJPYS5mc
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzz033L5+y1zht-p2NO+8nBsBMuhTr5K_FeGWeckd9H8tA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114abf6aab952c0554c418d5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/-VGI55twRuqhRK81ReEq9VljKYE>
Subject: Re: [bess] a question about bundled service in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:41:33 -0000

Thanks Ali.


On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi@cisco.com>
wrote:

>
> Hi Anoop,
>
> The provided text is fine. Given that it is just a minor clarification
> text, I think it should be OK to incorporate it; however, I need to check
> with the chairs and the AD given that this draft has already gone through
> the WG LC.
>
> Cheers,
> Ali
>
> From: <ghanwani@gmail.com> on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani <
> anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:11 AM
> To: Cisco Employee <sajassi@cisco.com>
> Cc: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>rg>, "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [bess] a question about bundled service in
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08
>
> Thanks Ali.
>
> May be worth modifying the sentence below to say:
> >>>
>
> 8) When a 802.1Q interface is used between a CE and a PE, each of the
>    VLAN ID (VID) on that interface can be mapped onto a bridge table
>    (for upto 4094 such bridge tables). More than one bridge table may be
>    mapped onto a single MAC-VRF (in case of VLAN-aware bundle service).
>
> >>>
>
> Anoop
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi@cisco.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani <
>> anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
>> Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:39 PM
>> To: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [bess] a question about bundled service in
>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08
>>
>>
>> This is what the draft says about bundled service:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08#section-4
>> >>>
>>
>> 8) When a 802.1Q interface is used between a CE and a PE, each of the
>>    VLAN ID (VID) on that interface can be mapped onto a bridge table
>>    (for upto 4094 such bridge tables). All these bridge tables may be
>>    mapped onto a single MAC-VRF (in case of VLAN-aware bundle service).
>>
>> >>>
>>
>> So it sounds like 1:1 is supported (that's the straightforward case where
>> the inner VLAD ID is stripped from the encap'ed packet) and All:1 is
>> supported (i.e. the service is blind to the incoming tag and just preserves
>> it as is, potentially with normalization if translation is required).
>>
>> What about the case for n:1 where I want some subset of VLAN IDs coming
>> in on a port to map to VNID1, and another subset map to VNID2?  Is that
>> explicitly disallowed?  If so, why?
>>
>> That’s is also supported. Refer to section 6 of RFC 7432 for different
>> service interfaces that are supported.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ali
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Anoop
>>
>>
>>
>>
>