Re: [bess] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ali,
  The suggested changes look good to me.

Thanks
Suresh

> On Jan 22, 2019, at 4:20 AM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Suresh,
> Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my replies below marked with "AS>".
> 
> On 1/9/19, 8:03 PM, "Suresh Krishnan" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>    Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
>    draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: No Objection
> 
>    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>    introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
>    Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
>    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ/
> 
> 
> 
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    COMMENT:
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    * Section 3.3 MAC Mobility
> 
>    The handling of MAC mobility between the EVPN and VPLS PEs seems a bit, for a
>    lack of a better term, "not seamless" to me. While only using EVPN a MAC that
>    has moved will get propagated out without *initiating* any sort of BUM traffic
>    itself as described Section 15 of RFC7432. If I understand this document
>    correctly, if a MAC moves onto a segment with a VPLS PE, traffic towards it
>    will be blackholed until it initiates BUM traffic which is not the case when
>    the MAC moves between EVPN PEs. Did I get this right? If so, I think this
>    limitation needs to be highlighted a bit more prominently.
> 
>  AS>  Section 3.3 describes two MAC move scenarios: move from EVPN PE to VPLS PE (1st para) and move from VPLS PE to EVPN PE (2nd para). In the first scenario, it says that if the moved MAC address doesn't initiate any BUM traffic (it only initiates known unicast traffic), then there can be black-holing for both EVPN and VPLS PEs. However, for the 2nd scenario, the black-holing can happen only for VPLS PEs. To clarify this point further, I added a sentence to each of the paragraph. 
> 1st para: Such black-holing happens for traffic destined to the moved C-MAC from both EVPN and VPLS PEs.
> 2nd para: Such black-holing happens for traffic destined to the moved C-MAC for only VPLS PEs but not for EVPN PEs.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ali
> 
>