Re: [bess] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12

"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <> Thu, 24 August 2017 05:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2CA13214D; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 22:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cbf6WfAqML00; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 22:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BB0A1321E3; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 22:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=128222; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1503552429; x=1504762029; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=L3NEVFUMZllQQF3kk9Lz4z25ZlP2kzZoYE+0jfAvN4E=; b=UihdW0OXuG9D4Rn35lEsbuC1NRH+yb/FlhNHGBaWYk9qx120wjJcbH6z +GFn3aLHHURLo5emiL5/fjkTIBP6/4U9rShNBj0zE0KawoxNs3fSokV5L 1B8ZjA7J6TErZY1oY4eqNcE62Yxr38FD5e2fZgCI06r33q2t6oU4OUuRx 4=;
X-Files: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-13.txt : 47269
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,419,1498521600"; d="txt'?scan'208,217";a="471091937"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Aug 2017 05:27:07 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v7O5R70r027610 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Aug 2017 05:27:07 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 01:27:06 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 01:27:06 -0400
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <>
To: Ravi Singh <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 05:27:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_D5C322FA217096sajassiciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 05:27:15 -0000

Hi Ravi,

Thanks for your comments. Please see my replies inline.

From: Ravi Singh <<>>
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 11:56 PM
To: "<>" <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12
Resent-From: <<>>
Resent-To: Cisco Employee <<>>, <<>>, <<>>, <<>>, <<>>, <<>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 11:56 PM


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-12
Reviewer: Ravi Singh
Review Date: 08/15/2017
Intended Status: Standards track

Summary: I have some concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

I've reviewed this draft.
Most of my comments fall under the category of "minor comments" and "nits".
The only major comments pertain to
a.       Sections 5.2/8.1: which appear like an overkill and could be considered for dropping from text.

Section 3.3.1 describes the need and the use for composite tunnel type described in 5.2/8.1. This has been discussed in length with your colleague Eric Rosen, Jeffrey Zhang, and John Drake. After discussing with them, if you still think it is “overkill”, then please elaborate as to why.

b.      Need for a new section on the doc:
Include section to address this specifically: "Is (PBB-)EVPN being a *more efficient* implementation of E-Tree functions demonstrated?" This is relevant since the abstract makes a pitch for this draft addressing how PBB(-EVPN) implement E-tree functionality more efficientlky. However, it takes a fine-toothed comb to glean that info. Eg. First para in section 3.1. Nowhere else in the text has the efficiency aspect been explicitly addressed.  This aspect could use a section of its own.

OK, the new section is 3.1 :-) It is not just the first paragraph of section 3.1 but the entire section that describes it - i.e., first paragraph says that if filtering is done on the ingress PE, it provides an efficient filtering and the rest of the section describes what it takes to do ingress filtering.

1.       Abstract: very clear
2.       Section1 : Introduction:
a.       How about referring to "[RFC7432] is a solution for multipoint L2VPN services"  as EVPN more directly?

OK, changed it to "EVPN (RFC7432) is a solution …"

3.       Section 2: E-tree scenarios
a.       Section 2.1: for the sake of terminology clarification, please edit the text to not mention the acronym until the full-expansion has been listed. The draft does list the full-expansion. Just not before first using the acronym.

Done. Also added a new section to define acronyms/terminology.

b.      Section 2.2: "
thus color MAC addresses via a "color" flag in a new extended community as detailed in section 3.1." should be referring to section 5.1 instead.

Done. Thanks for the catch.

4.       Section 3: Operation of EVPN
a.       3.1: "Extended Community with a Leaf indication flag is introduced [section5.2]"  ->
"Extended Community with a Leaf indication flag is introduced [section 5.1]"

Already corrected.

b.      3.3.1 (& section 5.2 as well): specifying (as this draft does) that the ingress PE X acting for a root entity, be able to dictate to a PE Y acting on behalf of a leaf entity, that PE Y should "ingress replication" or otherwise sounds excessive. Also, this draft does not make a strong enough case for the need for the modification to "PMSI Tunnel Attribute". Even if the foregoing was ignored, the draft does not address how PE X behaves should PE Y choose not to honor the setting of the "composite-tunnel bit".

Section 3.3.1 describes why ingress replication from leaf to roots would be sufficient and how to signal it efficiently. The co-authors as well as other reviewers (e.g., Eric Rosen, Jeffrey Zhang, and others listed in the ack section) have consensus on the current description in section 3.3.1.

5.       Section 4: Operation of PBB-EVPN: no specific comments. However, a little more detail would be useful to avoid having the reader repeatedly refer back to the PBB-EPVN RFC7623.

Both RFC 7432 and RFC7623 are prerequistes to this RFC and it is assumed the reader has full knowledge of both.

6.       Section 5: BGP encoding
a.       This looks like an unexpected section given the "abstract" and the "introduction" section.
The abstract and the introduction seem to indicate that no signaling changes are needed to make (PBB-)EVPN provide E-tree services. Abstract/introduction could use some rewording on this count.

Updated both abstract and introduction to say “a solution based on EVPN” instead of “EVPN”.

b.      Minor typo:
5.1: "The received PE" -> "The receiving PE"
Corrected it.

5.2: it would enhance readability if the flags were presented as
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
      |C  |reserved  |L|
C = composite-tunnel bit

C bit is in Tunnel Type field (and not the flag field).

Anyway, as stated above this draft does not make a strong enough case for the need for the modification to "PMSI Tunnel Attribute". The value added by this modification to the PMSI tunnel-attribute seems marginal. A leaf

7.       Section 8: IANA considerations: it would be useful to include text about the name of "E-Tree Flags" registry in section 5.1 and correlate these 2 sections.

Already addressed because of a similar comment (please refer to the attachment).

a.       Section 8.1: could be considered for dropping, in view of the previous comments on PMSI etc.
8.       Appendix A: too wordy. Could do with fewer better-chosen words to communicate the same message. Some minor singular/plural typos.