Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-01

Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com> Sun, 04 November 2018 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <xiejingrong@huawei.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 E0C7E130DCF; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 07:33:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GsJoFDb1vlo8; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 07:33:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7CF6127332; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 07:33:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 23EF2716657E4; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 15:33:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 15:33:15 +0000
Received: from NKGEML514-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::40a8:f0d:c0f3:2ca5]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Sun, 4 Nov 2018 23:32:59 +0800
From: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>
To: "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
CC: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG adoption poll for draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-01
Thread-Index: AdRwKWwO40SljUpzQ4CkoTLADFNCoQEJmR/Q
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 15:32:59 +0000
Message-ID: <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115A99B2A98E@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <12866_1540887721_5BD814A9_12866_117_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B735BC6@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <12866_1540887721_5BD814A9_12866_117_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B735BC6@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.126.168.224]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115A99B2A98Enkgeml514mbxchi_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/-_VH_P8scyLm1leEl6GoCamIi_0>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-01
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 04 Nov 2018 15:33:21 -0000

+1 support the adoption.

My comments:

1.      The problem stated by this draft is valid, and the proposed method is useful for some of the listed problem. For example, EVPN BUM who uses MPLS identification and dataplane.

2.      EVPN BUM using vxlan/vni identification may not need a MPLS label to identify the vpn/tenant.

3.      For MVPN who has a UMH(Upstream Multicast Hop) selection procedure, the exist using of upstream-assigned VpnLabel can be optimized to only populate to forwarding-state when there are c-multicast flows selecting the specific UMH PE.

4.      For an End-to-End deployment of MVPN who spans multi-ASes as the way stated in <draft-geng-bier-sr-multicast-deployment>, the allocation of a global-unique label is useful and possible. But operators may need to be very careful to allocate the very limited MPLS labels. Because, MPLS labels has been divided to SRLB and SRGB, and SRGB may have been again divided by SR-domains according to <draft-filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect-12>.

5.      For segmented MVPN deployment, the further divide of the MPLS Label is also difficult when thinking of the above.

6.      For BIER, is the BIER proto=1 indicating a BIER-specific unique VpnLabel ? or a Per-platform (RFC5331) downstream-assigned unique label ?  if it is the later one, how about adding a new BIER proto value to indicating a BIER-specific unique VpnLabel ?  And then a static Context (BIER) can be optional to the dynamic advertising of a Context ?


From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 4:22 PM
To: bess@ietf.org
Subject: [bess] WG adoption poll for draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-01

Hi WG,

This email begins a two-week poll for BESS working group adoption draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label-01 [1]

Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list, stating whether or not you support adoption.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress without answers from all the authors and contributors.

If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

The poll for working group adoption closes on Tue 13th November.

Regards,
Stéphane and Matthew

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label/





[Orange logo]<http://www.orange.com/>

Stephane Litkowski
Network Architect
Orange/SCE/EQUANT/OINIS/NET
Orange Expert Future Networks
phone: +33 2 23 06 49 83 <https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%202%2023%2028%2049%2083%20>  NEW !
mobile: +33 6 71 63 27 50 <https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%206%2037%2086%2097%2052%20>  NEW !
stephane.litkowski@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com>


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.