Re: [bess] SHL label

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Wed, 05 June 2019 05:48 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.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 D5A19120120 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 22:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=eci365.onmicrosoft.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 4v8fOQ3rFHhQ for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 22:48:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta26.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta26.messagelabs.com [85.158.142.5]) (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 1647B12003E for <bess@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 22:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [85.158.142.101] (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) by server-5.bemta.az-a.eu-central-1.aws.symcld.net id 55/A9-19624-BA757FC5; Wed, 05 Jun 2019 05:48:27 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrFJsWRWlGSWpSXmKPExsViougQq7s6/Hu Mwb7D8hZvZ65ht1hxfCazxd0ff9ksni14zOjA4rFz1l12jyVLfjJ53L11iSmAOYo1My8pvyKB NWN913WWglnPGStWLfzG0sDY84Sxi5GLg0VgLbPEjSdtLCCOkMAEJon7VzYxQzj3GCVWz13P3 sXIycEmYCuxafVdNhBbREBNomHhbLB2ZoEFjBKL92xnBUkIC8hKHOpdB1UkJ7F2bxuQzQFku0 kcac4ACbMIqEh0rFwMVs4rECvRdvYYO8Sy10wSi5eeZQZJcArESRx8+YURxGYUEJP4fmoNE4j NLCAucevJfDBbQkBAYsme88wQtqjEy8f/WCHqkyTuP13ICBFXkHhwcg5UjazEpfndUHFfiQv/ V7GD3CYhoCyx5UUsyA0SAo8ZJR7u7GCFqNGS+HzhIwuELSVx4uJRqHiOxKlVp6BsNYkbbzqg5 stIdLy+xQYx6BqbxPqW42BFQgLJEifmfIYaJCexqvchC0TRBWaJ+xfns09g1J6F5DkIO09i4q /LbLPAoSQocXLmE5ZZQMcyC2hKrN+lD1GiKDGl+yE7hK0h0TpnLjuy+AJG9lWMFklFmekZJbm JmTm6hgYGuoaGxrqGuhameolVuol6qaW6yal5JUWJQEm9xPJiveLK3OScFL281JJNjMDkllLI GLqDcd+B13qHGCU5mJREeV3kv8cI8SXlp1RmJBZnxBeV5qQWH2KU4eBQkuC1DQPKCRalpqdWp GXmABMtTFqCg0dJhDcHJM1bXJCYW5yZDpE6xejKcWDRw7nMHFvuPwOSu8DkzJnPgeTbg0BSiC UvPy9VSpzXBqRZAKQ5ozQPbjQsS1xilJUS5mVkYGAQ4ilILcrNLEGVf8UozsGoJMyrCDKFJzO vBO6CV0DHMQEdx3/hG8hxJYkIKakGpi0SkdJHvxq8ZrcuOaFpzvNr4ZquO9YzezQ0bQUuxpnr KuTXtd44NpPT7LjXdgZ90ReddWqLz9vl/7k+4dlX/9J61h+V2fcqUhVfp0TNOCepGBfZ7azje LnSrEL1UY++knw8k1zBnDVflO/1S8WWLHs+7/QRNt/0DwsZYz6yHVr89PwpjSPnTQ+rrnmerL rJfd3E6wkin5pSp8d0W35dkMnz7i/L5dygRaJt6xhsLyzYJpkudZBvYatA9XstLx7zhk9XEsx 2cs9Vk9XqzorSOLnzTM/1K7+mJltsv5cbE9nwy6q6z/r1rk86unvfrGJaenIN5xzJoPMP9jl6 tYRc/vD9weXzWeuuynumLb/eqcRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAOqfhnGNBAAA
X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-226.messagelabs.com!1559713703!116776!1
X-Originating-IP: [52.33.64.93]
X-SYMC-ESS-Client-Auth: mailfrom-relay-check=pass
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 9.43.9; banners=ecitele.com,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 24410 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2019 05:48:26 -0000
Received: from us-west-2b.mta.dlp.protect.symantec.com (HELO EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (52.33.64.93) by server-2.tower-226.messagelabs.com with ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 encrypted SMTP; 5 Jun 2019 05:48:26 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ECI365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ECI365-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=YFyrqXAW3QtGNrD+/evOZQgNlHQU2OfDocRyl6kVB5o=; b=rcMEq/tIP49agoddY1hPx9C6+xN30JXIBf9ytHpgaq/hBBPS/Mdy9BkMUAV+7iIz0yyaXdTty4yFFXoGT6EsxrTu1ihVKwrfDuuF9Q9WqnJWaqmqtO71qQ6isuD6xiq5ec0SLO6vhpwIf6G5zDxM/GgGMWco0bplLs2LxrYw4fo=
Received: from AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (52.135.146.159) by AM0PR03MB5076.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (20.178.22.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1943.22; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 05:48:21 +0000
Received: from AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::91f3:6bd1:1631:9b4a]) by AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::91f3:6bd1:1631:9b4a%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1943.018; Wed, 5 Jun 2019 05:48:21 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: Anush Mohan <anush.iitm@gmail.com>
CC: gangadhara reddy chavva <meetgangadhara@gmail.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: [bess] SHL label
Thread-Index: AQHVGtJ3oNv6u48nfEiZCciS3bCI8KaLl4CRgADS64CAAApgdIAAGiA6
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 05:48:21 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR03MB38286CBA113F183984668A069D160@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAAG_SC-_P53HzYYPBTwag2bN6WOk+xbOM88E6A1Zfg73Aa_Apw@mail.gmail.com> <0307BA53-B141-4D65-9BD8-0BC0D63BBD4D@nokia.com> <AM0PR03MB38286DCF7007B81EC60D3F539D150@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>, <CAO76cfUPUFze+Z1qAzCnEU=XGVRD9puxJCKsk_9OgcVe==tFOg@mail.gmail.com>, <AM0PR03MB382844FEB9553AC2E6F39EB39D160@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR03MB382844FEB9553AC2E6F39EB39D160@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [40.67.250.74]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 17f93afc-4c2a-4b15-923f-08d6e9796aed
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR03MB5076;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR03MB5076:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR03MB507623FF0F9E076922F0E6E19D160@AM0PR03MB5076.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 00594E8DBA
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(136003)(39860400002)(366004)(396003)(376002)(53754006)(189003)(199004)(129404003)(606006)(66446008)(66556008)(5660300002)(91956017)(64756008)(66476007)(73956011)(54906003)(66946007)(76116006)(7696005)(66066001)(508600001)(76176011)(68736007)(256004)(5024004)(14444005)(446003)(316002)(52536014)(476003)(486006)(8676002)(11346002)(81166006)(81156014)(71190400001)(71200400001)(25786009)(7736002)(186003)(72206003)(966005)(33656002)(102836004)(6246003)(6916009)(99286004)(6506007)(4326008)(8936002)(53546011)(236005)(26005)(3846002)(54896002)(6306002)(6116002)(55016002)(6436002)(14454004)(9686003)(53936002)(2940100002)(229853002)(86362001)(2906002)(74316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR03MB5076; H:AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ecitele.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: gbgrpvcyLcm7MZZHVJDaW91WgAqKWJqW4JLcXHfSNdQtOaF5A+FrENJRzFG4c1YrbeGGlZgmro5TJehlAzM/uanPUQJ0iBp8TLX6PI5YRP+2otcdoPDoYJM2/s10YUu1Kms9lGUu15auOxZx4cfIVPsptlBb/UHZmRYwOutpXcbaP/Ra1bLr7YjnavpgBK/2jjex3W6JD2PD8mvOTWoLvYXcnfluhIWtK1248zkwK75MJLWi8KMjg5qRb9L1TNlbe35ZauExrkZQYezHPuTemCA9mboEPDIPjjBYBeXmGEgaeFuhUtkUzz7x+wTyUm1f3RPog/Mfhg6ev7lY42lXVq4qm7H3HuHGxurh4eJnNlmR49xG269YRIpJBKzafkNZNR1c9rvRNhpmIf3EXv1DzsWigBEEzr3FSEKkexPk/u8=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM0PR03MB38286CBA113F183984668A069D160AM0PR03MB3828eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 17f93afc-4c2a-4b15-923f-08d6e9796aed
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Jun 2019 05:48:21.2763 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2c514a61-08de-4519-b4c0-921fef62c42a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: alexvain@ecitele.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR03MB5076
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/h66TC-KJALaYlt3LHdfGtOhQBjU>
Subject: Re: [bess] SHL label
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: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 05:48:35 -0000

Anush,
A minor correction to my previous email.

The ESI label MAY be allocated from a dedicated label space IF (and only if) the allocating PE is known not to use ingress replication (e.g., if it does not support it).

If usage of ingress replication by the advertizing PE is nor precluded, the ESI label MUST be assigned from the per-platfirm label space.

This is my reading of Section 8.3.1 of RFC 7432.

Hope this helps.

Thumb typed by Sasha Vainshtein



From: Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 07:14
Subject: Re: [bess] SHL label
To: Anush Mohan
Cc: gangadhara reddy chavva, bess@ietf.org, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)


Anush,
I think you have already answered your question when you have described your use case😉.

ESI Label is assigned by a PE when its Ethernet port is configured to be part of an MH ES regardless of (and prior to) any specific EVI that is connected to it.

Therefore it MUST be allocated from the per platform label space.

My 2c.

Thumb typed by Sasha Vainshtein



From: Anush Mohan
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 06:38
Subject: Re: [bess] SHL label
To: Alexander Vainshtein
Cc: gangadhara reddy chavva, bess@ietf.org, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)


hi,

   I had a follow up question regarding this.

  If we are using P2MP tunnel for replicating BUM traffic, the ESI-label is assigned by upstream PE, but actually programmed by downstream PEs in the context of upstream-PE. In this case, does the upstream-PE still need to assign this label from its platform label-space ? ( In other words this label can't be used by upstream-PE to receive any incoming label traffic)

  The scenario I want to clarify is: we already  have an EVI using P2MP tunnel for replicating BUM traffic, configured on this ES.
  And later we configure another EVI on this ES, where we want to use ingress replication for sending BUM traffic.


Regards
Anush


On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:33 PM Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
I concur with Jorge.

The ESI label is allocated per MH ES and does not depend on the service or on the method by which BUM frames are deliverd. This method only affects the way in which it is used:
- in the case of ingress replication a copy that is sent to the specific LE attached to a given MH ES uses the label this PE has advertised for this ES. I.e. it is used as downstream-allocated
- In the case of P2MP LSPs (where all PEs receive the same copy) the transmitter uses the ESI label it has allocated for the ES (it is upstream-allocated), and each receiver uses the label(s) that identify the transmitter PE  as the context labels for its correct processing.

RFC 7474 is quite clear in this regard from my POV.


Thumb typed by Sasha Vainshtein



From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 15:38
Subject: Re: [bess] SHL label
To: gangadhara reddy chavva, bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>


Hi,

The ESI label is signaled in the A-D per ES route(s), and those routes are (should be) service agnostic.
Also as you can see in RFC7432, the ESI label is downstream allocated for ingress replication but upstream allocated for p2mp - So it’s not that you allocate different ESI label per service, but the label that you use has different owner.

I think RFC7432 is pretty clear about this. Not sure where the confusion is.

Thanks.
Jorge

From: gangadhara reddy chavva <meetgangadhara@gmail.com<mailto:meetgangadhara@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, June 3, 2019 at 2:05 PM
To: "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>>
Subject: SHL label

Hi Jorge,

I have a Question on EVPN MH SHL(split horizon label).

Can ESI share the different SHL label for the same ESI?

case 1: in the same ESI one customer EVPN VPN can have ingress replication for the BUM traffic and second EVPN VPN ine the same ESI can do P2MP? in this case SHL label should be different.

case 2: can VPLS allocate one SHL and VPWS can allocate diffrent SHL label? or SHL should be same per ESI irrespective of number of applications enabled in that ESI.

Thanks,
Gangadhar




___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess





___________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is 
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this 
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original 
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________