Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02
Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Mon, 05 July 2021 20:44 UTC
Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@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 E6FFC3A17E4; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:44:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 5YtkFPQIXtd3; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) (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 48DD83A17E0; Mon, 5 Jul 2021 13:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id u14so19350611pga.11; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 13:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ROgjytpNDCQeYcr8BhGpxCfaTBFHti6LCVzdJENeSl8=; b=tUjbVKSPkJSItDGsOJi9vogHvASkGbf/WmoEQzM9RKury2ApNAfSPo5EAYNiz9eams cJmVT/Y1nGf4TG22gQE45iQKBdKsvub3xZvzyi7R+9DyN12cfunZavgt+2hil99YyY+J ffxBm2LEc5xhjKNg1qEY+sGz1hM7erc97st9JXP8D7Udyf3ovTXQOe2eb1QJOSraFA9q wtkpf0k/CqCYGQViSBI+RZRYDrJTuhyQBA+vi5BPKsOLJomC1fRaxAvqLzsIRvJmMiYZ MvH5hBcn9kf9RrQoJ0BsBMmoM9W3+AcZM8lYcSdVOR6UZEJg3xdT/LkWaNOlc1fU0pJy H/cQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ROgjytpNDCQeYcr8BhGpxCfaTBFHti6LCVzdJENeSl8=; b=BHoeYBOwCw/eFLhdo/FtDuuD7GMdHT3SVU4eZNeZqX+GfG52h3tKJoObOSvfmQdCqx Z7T8+BqPUHtWLe2zDaOHwGVQLhJRDkf77a9SvFwuIscuFyM9ciDX/NWhxNSsfWLq0uO0 uZol5dUjnfz+5Nx72/ZgnX94M2Ie0yWHP2LbVDv7Iqna4fUT6VJDmt1UrZ4nQ9Uwby6V Gu3CVp9Z2CTtt6ZUtOLb09Dz9SkjwB98Um6z0oyV3wj4v+0qC6G1UrQ/xMrCVB5e8beX NLLdDtgf4Ovh+JYEogv11Iaxzbwg2LpYRNlwPxQkzx/qUCNk/KnLr4dYygkgx+r3WH19 iz2w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533iDqbq3Zv9msj8mhHOYnmqSLD6IMF0JKGfLbNiTZ6YK2SlOp14 FVyaGeXrJgBsMoptlgiafDQX1z11H6vJFmTptLM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJykxUVQmHekSPGQ1Wui+IaNimhGotthqxTiDWr1q7I3tTzOfg75inWPhguA0BGytuirxp5Rn7n5uDZoS92adoc=
X-Received: by 2002:a65:4b8d:: with SMTP id t13mr14888580pgq.18.1625517859989; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 13:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0aad01d755ee$ed599f10$c80cdd30$@gmail.com> <CA+-tSzxxKWtLi2DsGy9EhBH1iT2cEKHO9BfW6nka7w=YjP0wVA@mail.gmail.com> <DF4PR8401MB0650707D822943352E7FF8C2AF1C9@DF4PR8401MB0650.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CA+-tSzwvBx3ScYpQ8T9Yz_ePvOngfWYWwoungyK9Gq0rz9LgVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-tSzwvBx3ScYpQ8T9Yz_ePvOngfWYWwoungyK9Gq0rz9LgVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 16:44:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV2gQ8eS0ujy8v-kefa-iDHnkfZc0fNCPoNxxW3CJOtfEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
Cc: BESS <bess@ietf.org>, Luc André Burdet <laburdet.ietf@gmail.com>, "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, "slitkows.ietf@gmail.com" <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009eed5305c6665e1a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/1fzW0dv-bpEUKshIU6PcSSbXBNY>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02
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: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:44:27 -0000
I support publication of this draft. EVPN MH port active active/backup MLAG is an important feature for operators. Gyan On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 3:39 PM Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> wrote: > Thanks Luc. > > Would it be possible to add a line in section 4 along the lines of: > > "While the various algorithms for DF election are discussed in Sections > 4.2-4.4, unlike all-active load balancing, the choice of algorithm in this > solution doesn't impact performance in any way since there is only one > active link." > > Anoop > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:31 AM Luc André Burdet <laburdet.ietf@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thank you for your careful review Anoop; >> >> I have uploaded -03 which I believe addresses all comments. >> >> >> >> Regarding the section specifying procedures for all DF Election >> algorithms: it is included per a previous review comment, primarily to be >> comprehensive for all existing DF Algos. I agree the *result* may >> generally not vary much but the details of the procedure need to be >> specified. I hope this clears up any confusion. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Luc André >> >> >> >> Luc André Burdet | Cisco | laburdet.ietf@gmail.com | Tel: +1 613 >> 254 4814 >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani < >> anoop@alumni.duke.edu> >> *Date: *Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 19:23 >> *To: *"slitkows.ietf@gmail.com" <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com> >> *Cc: *"bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, BESS <bess@ietf.org> >> *Subject: *Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on >> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02 >> >> >> >> >> >> I support publication of this document. The following are my comments. >> >> >> >> == >> >> Abstract >> >> >> >> - I think it would be better to list the RFC rather than say "EVPN >> standard", since EVPN standard is an evolving term. >> >> - "support of port-active" -> "support for port-active" >> >> - The last line of the abstract should be moved to the introduction. >> >> >> >> Section 1 >> >> >> >> - "The determinism provided by active-standby per interface is also >> required for certain QOS features to work." >> >> Can you provide an example of this? >> >> - Change >> >> "A new term of load-balancing mode, port-active load- balancing is then >> defined." >> >> to >> >> "A new load-balancing mode, port-active load-balancing is defined." >> >> >> >> - Change >> >> "This draft describes how that new redundancy mode can be supported via >> EVPN" >> to >> "This draft describes how that new load balancing mode can be supported >> via EVPN" >> >> (Just for consistency, I think it would be better to search the >> doc throughout and make sure that "redundancy" is not being used in place >> of "load balancing", since we are defining a new load balancing method, not >> a new redundancy method/topology.) >> >> >> >> - Is "Bundle-Ethernet interfaces" a well-known term? I think it may be >> better to drop Bundle. I am not sure if what is meant here is "members of >> a LAG". >> >> >> >> - "multi-homing to CE" -> "multi-homing to the CE". >> >> >> >> Section 2 >> >> >> >> - Change >> >> "form a bundle and operate as a Link Aggregation Group (LAG)" >> >> to >> >> "form and operate as a Link Aggregation Group (LAG)" >> >> (In EVPN bundling normally refers to many:1 mapping of VLAN to >> VNI/service instance). >> >> >> >> - Include reference for ICCP. >> >> >> >> - Change >> >> "CE device connected to Multi-homing PEs may has" >> >> to >> >> "CE device connected to multi-homing PEs may have" >> >> >> >> - Change >> >> "Links in the Ethernet Bundle" >> >> to >> >> "links in the LAG" >> >> >> >> - Change >> >> "Any discrepancies from this list is left for future study." >> >> to >> >> "Any discrepancies from this list are left for future study." >> >> >> >> Section 3 >> >> >> >> - Missing period at the end of (b). >> >> >> >> - Layer2 attributes -> Layer-2 attributes. >> >> >> >> Section 4.2/4.3 >> >> >> >> I got a bit confused here. The draft discusses Modulo, HRW. Do we >> essentially end up with a single active link, but just that which link is >> chosen is dependent on the algorithm? If so, what is the benefit of doing >> so? I can see why multiple algorithms are of value when we are doing >> VLAN-based load balancing to multiple active links. >> >> >> >> Section 5 >> >> >> >> - "Bundle-Ethernet" -> "LAG" >> >> >> >> Section 5.1 >> >> >> >> - "per ES routes for fast convergence" -> "per ES route for fast >> convergence" >> >> >> >> Section 5.2 >> >> >> >> - "per EVI routes" -> "per EVI route" >> >> >> >> Section 7 >> >> >> >> - spurious 'g'. >> >> >> >> - missing period under the second sub-bullet of point 'f'. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 12:31 AM <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello WG, >> >> >> >> >> >> This email starts a two weeks Working Group Last Call on >> >> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa-02 [1]. >> >> >> >> >> >> This poll runs until * the 7th of June *. >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. The Document won't progress without answers from >> >> all the Authors and Contributors. >> >> >> >> There is currently no IPR disclosed. >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2]. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> >> Stephane & Matthew >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-mh-pa/ >> >> >> >> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BESS mailing list >> BESS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >> >> _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347*
- [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on draft… slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Luc André Burdet
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Samir Thoria (sthoria)
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Wen, Bin
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Luc André Burdet
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Dikshit, Saumya
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Luc André Burdet
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Luc André Burdet
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Dikshit, Saumya
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Luc André Burdet
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Dikshit, Saumya
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… slitkows.ietf
- Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll on d… Dikshit, Saumya