[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Hi Igor

Ditto & me more attentive in reading the draft!

Cheers

Gyan

On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 5:56 AM Igor Malyushkin <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Gyan,
>
> I’m sorry for a mistake with your name. I’ll be more attentive next time!
>
> Ср, 29 янв. 2025 г. в 17:04, Igor Malyushkin <[e-mail]>:
>
>>
>> Hi Gian,
>>
>> Section 9.2.2 cannot be applied, it says that explicitly:
>>
>>    Usage of leaf A-D routes is described in the "*Inter-AS* Inclusive
>>    P-Multicast Tree A-D/Binding" and "Optimizing Multicast Distribution
>>    via Selective Trees" sections.
>>
>>
>> The section in question is named "*Intra-AS* Inclusive P-Multicast Tree
>> Auto-discovery/Binding", not *Inter*. Please, pay attention to it.
>>
>> At the same time, Sections 4 and 4.1 describe which routes they exactly
>> expect:
>>
>>    VPLS auto-discovery using BGP, as described in [RFC4761 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4761>] and
>>    [RFC6074 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6074>], enables a PE to learn the VPLS instance membership of
>>    other PEs.
>>
>>
>> And:
>>
>>    To participate in the VPLS auto-discovery/binding, a PE router that
>>    has a given VSI of a given VPLS instance originates a BGP VPLS Intra-
>>    AS A-D route and advertises this route in Multiprotocol (MP) IBGP.
>>    The route is constructed as described in [RFC4761 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4761>] and [RFC6074 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6074>].
>>
>>
>> These must be VPLS A-D routes, not Leaf routes, and they don't have an
>> Originating Router IP field.
>>
>>    ... then the local PE MUST use the
>>    Originating Router's IP Address information carried in the *Intra-AS
>>    A-D route* to add the PE, that originated the route, as a leaf node to
>>    the LSP.  This MUST be done irrespective of whether or not the
>>    received Intra-AS A-D route carries the PMSI Tunnel attribute.
>>
>>
>> In my understanding, a "leaf" above is specifically *for the RSVP-TE* *case
>> *when a sending PE can't expect any actual leaf routes from others
>> because of the nature of *inclusive *tree construction and it still
>> needs to signal tunnels toward them (thus, needs to know their addresses).
>>
>> So, I still think the errata is correct.
>>
>> P.S. I don't like the idea of using the BGP NH as an identifier of a
>> sender. I think the IETF should provide better tools for that case (as well
>> as for the case of the identification of a service instance from a sender).
>> But this is out-of-scope and cannot be applied right here for the problem
>> in question, so BGP NH is the only option.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ср, 29 янв. 2025 г. в 14:10, Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Jorge
>>>
>>> I reviewed the errata.
>>>
>>> For the RFC 7117 errata I had a question.
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>>
>>> There is no such field as the Origination Router's IP Address in any
>>> VPLS A-D routes (RFC4761, RFC6074). For Intra-AS cases the BGP NH IP
>>> address can be used for the leaf tracking.
>>> Section 9.2,2 describes the VPLS Leaf A-D route which has route key and
>>> originating routers IP address that the source sends Leaf A-D for S-PMSi
>>> w/o PTA attribute present.
>>>
>>> RFC 6514 procedure uses the same leaf a-d route for mLDP P2MP of RSVP-TE
>>> P2MP PTA described in section 4.4 for lead a-d route.
>>>
>>> To me it seems the text is correct in RFC 7117.
>>>
>>> The other errata is correct for RFC 8584.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>
>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>
>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>
>>> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 9:24 AM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.rabadan=
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Matthew,
>>>>
>>>> I checked the two errata and I agree they are correct.
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> Jorge
>>>>
>>>> From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <matthew.bocci=[e-mail]>
>>>> Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 at 3:17 AM
>>>> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
>>>> Subject: [bess] Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584
>>>>
>>>> WG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are a couple of errata on these RFCs that I would appreciate your
>>>> feedback on:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=7977 (Multicast in
>>>> Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS))
>>>>
>>>>    - I believe this is correct and can be verified.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5900 (Framework for
>>>> Ethernet VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility)
>>>>
>>>>    - I believe this is correct and can be verified.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know by Monday 10th Feb if you have any concerns with
>>>> verifying these.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> BESS mailing list -- [e-mail]
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> BESS mailing list -- [e-mail]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>>
>>