Return-Path: 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 49642C1D5C76 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 22:25:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rbbn.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dk0GDEBog_kt for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 22:25:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from usb-smtp-delivery-110.mimecast.com (usb-smtp-delivery-110.mimecast.com [170.10.151.110]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E0FDC1D4A82 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 22:25:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rbbn.com; s=mimecast20240522; t=1736922307; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type; bh=xIm8nQ0F79PtzLK6upo7LvFWqjhvDh3A5sCqHRGgx4w=; b=H5n6OPvp84i/wdGwHzemkt4xfIzy0CcUxYaPTNz5yxyCN7hV79dzHpL9zM2tCj+MDEuT9l +DxoV2RUJtRfASoOfHipU1Tl+mXC3zjtjn20pI2VLefc6R5yVAh7KiY2gcfSoXsCzlLB1e GNO6X6YW4by30WjHa1ZHIyh+bReZeDjjirZtLqvL0ixPO3uvGk3/s3QXMxJD5icQ5U8xxz bXPKLb8SettH6JqU8ov431kjwRZH98yOqICgNPQRzTbM1u5dkUS6NPywr2cY7GlutJAtn2 1giKA/yAT7L5wnvZeMMOJY2ZTu3o7PwQNnOk+e5arLmHNNY9jzuRYuP0xwHAVw== Received: from NAM04-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam04lp2043.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.73.43]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id usb-mta-45-QushRnf4NB6vEEVvuyytvw-2; Tue, 14 Jan 2025 22:25:02 -0800 X-MC-Unique: QushRnf4NB6vEEVvuyytvw-2 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: QushRnf4NB6vEEVvuyytvw Received: from PH0PR03MB6300.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:510:e2::5) by DS7PR03MB5462.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:2d0::18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.8356.13; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 06:24:57 +0000 Received: from PH0PR03MB6300.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a48b:db16:775a:4a16]) by PH0PR03MB6300.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a48b:db16:775a:4a16%4]) with mapi id 15.20.8356.010; Wed, 15 Jan 2025 06:24:57 +0000 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: "draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: A question about duplicate MAC detection in Section 15.1 of draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis Thread-Index: AdtnEcJD7S5AIiysTlS3XYKPiL95ug== Importance: high X-Priority: 1 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 06:24:57 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: PH0PR03MB6300:EE_|DS7PR03MB5462:EE_ x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f41b982f-cbad-48ec-749e-08dd352d5533 x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;ARA:13230040|1800799024|10070799003|376014|366016|8096899003|38070700018 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: =?us-ascii?Q?kA4eIrbysgZ2t4wFtlyJ5HSbNY0XSFV1Bkshtg7ioi05OYrsNJEHOrgdO+tV?= =?us-ascii?Q?W0bQ8Qzat+6nyIKiO57zSHhrS+U1DyewFs6UQY88HejSr+0EvlYwqEI/V8/S?= =?us-ascii?Q?gWeDSXYYRU3ClunRy1SyyZTgj0mo5vVgqYaONT5yDk0EY5jqoBmemdXXFcKa?= =?us-ascii?Q?rRqMXQgZZoKOJtONYHO2Y+lA/Alj1EIa23ju2vNF2N1RSHT7yvoDpQ21WT4I?= =?us-ascii?Q?tnexDLpEOqqWKIftEhBdR7sksfef9fiZPvTPIixkGrpepVt/c1WDu9RUFMSA?= =?us-ascii?Q?y/vP7eKSsEHWaV/EXCdBKQLXQqXiLqcRI1o4Vlez2+bQfCfdoihvEa4e6yiX?= =?us-ascii?Q?+n75EqWUyrA3zUZGZ6Yd3n1gE5pzUb5L5aimuiuJ6e4jiM53xBOSDx1ep/Lp?= =?us-ascii?Q?fKW4PNQlGanXg8AMtHl2X6zmRS8sWcEy8Pvfp6ZA1q+ITqf8a6X0Z0WiEJip?= =?us-ascii?Q?gPYXxm3mZUyjgvBwZnIYLAsNa+C04ld0DSA1LLeW9YrP1877vEWgBVcKWNov?= =?us-ascii?Q?cxioBJa0tkUkCXZJvin/JVbxnFZug2TupI75oJuCs3J26N4Mqle57QNlRswf?= =?us-ascii?Q?5JSPMZVh+EGs3fFhbUdNhJXFbacvTM6MKNIFzuLNOHpqB6f4cFRR+dGg/SvE?= =?us-ascii?Q?vKPSahMRLAZgbYQQgEMB9CMMjx6GhtXYvd9vwvGJnxOEt4JRqjIg/qM2Kl/i?= =?us-ascii?Q?6W61Ys+4sz7groVRZZvY1f7WYjYbS/xPlwpGCcMEvN2WppfV0aDNIuQrIjpx?= =?us-ascii?Q?Q9BJnuyvvN3EI7LsR7Jy9SnT5JZfDJoCRggLzN2RowFfpowcndKIkaW9Mo4Q?= =?us-ascii?Q?+nOayrffFMz+RLcta1H7e8mhHhzLGcCOyEd/hPjPx0d5IBfjHKFuREtxr2VJ?= =?us-ascii?Q?/ZUOrEz9tUmH6FpNPn+LrraN7l9ROzGQ0ohPneocY8eMVutdk8pp09TidRnC?= =?us-ascii?Q?TZWD/Ie519qkz02hJiDQ8XunADxFm6JBU+vbyKZ/vvmG/6ZRKE/A3B4c5+8g?= =?us-ascii?Q?qZiAIpVKPP8xMpJsxR2X1BKkwmMLJ3EOuvUYW8CDiyfFTunu5yr+5ToqcDRg?= =?us-ascii?Q?2WJveHeAFI1B9CBHCNw9it7QNR+9cnE33tHu3GKsrTkmXhoGnjOmV0GvINey?= =?us-ascii?Q?HT+xpX6IcpODoOH2k7fSSHqRIedxWhvzn/INSF378mzMxiKGA3WqLor8vyL0?= =?us-ascii?Q?igwzW1T9Wnu0jt2jwMV+xwdAqV0YCp5NXOfXhsWulCATjzibxL8/bibPhhjP?= =?us-ascii?Q?m248lfOK+cLxmu+5kI+MewhU6zDBLAAS5Y6qI4NMHC8/giFaUzEQ4STk/H0Y?= =?us-ascii?Q?Wb6J2QtmGo1vasnlzsuSWqR5jnn9hn+2B+OYKsCD/houNHzbu5dTYBaUoCyP?= =?us-ascii?Q?rNGmuSEm2Bh3/8eK4pnChHZyN+XZ6/hXuX8eht22X3KWmFsI9JbQhD6exHs2?= =?us-ascii?Q?u2WIivuVvrG/n5X82nOPu8XvF1FVizWe?= x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255;CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:PH0PR03MB6300.namprd03.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE;SFS:(13230040)(1800799024)(10070799003)(376014)(366016)(8096899003)(38070700018);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: =?us-ascii?Q?Wvnf/qxWlCkBfdTUlBORHhQAM5dTmZ4HlMzTz44V7qQua4XZ4jldu/W+Ppq1?= =?us-ascii?Q?k5wU63bArvxUFBu4t6Cm9e9roxzg19niN6BMdizyJMS/VRwhg76dex/PDsnp?= =?us-ascii?Q?Eg6y1PLNOmunlA/rpdbrHNxg8I3EgBnPIu2BOjT9R0suzTjMLrbUTrXihBJh?= =?us-ascii?Q?8vMfZMMv1bRSFhIN4y5KHocyuOFMAxTLcs8q0p2divOBoP9Njw9aWYxO2dy0?= =?us-ascii?Q?k0UhjalRqzgnHDcHP8RXP74VnnfOEWFFE3RbbrvBZY45TUDPrMNiDUxwAjKq?= =?us-ascii?Q?+ckOv6AMNZgTEfMtdd7lqm7nfvogahuMCVmOx/mnhyXz48Qb/R854ftwZjeH?= =?us-ascii?Q?NAwu/2uMafmQfgObtctRwcuEAs1tnP2aisJB1h5HI7KQDEpzR3wiMKLeQD8H?= =?us-ascii?Q?mUCyKFEDD/ckoHyS5dt0/wAqeG9FQ7Y1UGNIJWmMlMvCnuaR3ltSRqudPnkk?= =?us-ascii?Q?ony84nEdfY7o832w3ucpfg6aQKsZrhnK1lk0VNJaZO+LshXwJFp9iwJ+kDHA?= =?us-ascii?Q?GVShntaIiNYnLwq8Mv2MEVtoNPJRzFMSMuxQxrWhz3FMaTGNMHng8voRgvGj?= =?us-ascii?Q?O2cYk+agv7va9wW4o18AjkV6Ao8DT0m9SJ9CXFxcYsyXJubTUtkFnSNVQF9c?= =?us-ascii?Q?soW6+aWEcqCKjVtU5xBv045HiDB89QaRrldFQtld1K4tmrMWUZGBivDJDMwT?= =?us-ascii?Q?bqV3q+tKKxBLoluCNocPqVif7MXLrWwMM7FgaDLGQB203xyXseLFbbzL+KlT?= =?us-ascii?Q?FLxcd5TnWr9+j+Sr6FcqRJ9+MwSJWhIoNbTLo2HkK9wC1JYawQzIRAutLJEO?= =?us-ascii?Q?sIh7ysL0z+DtItvQPhrquOH4cVpCCWADz+CUmCgdVpSAByVLSgA+1Sw9PzMD?= =?us-ascii?Q?0tEGisQlWBNWRdMR2e6AP8QxeGy4+A2cTB2Fzb/J7BHBKH9SNTqui2TPEqS2?= =?us-ascii?Q?wKPbQUeGSQAw+CV+0kGMSKD+FPegyyN6stl3mqx2ql7AOKnGPlqpbaIZiJ6S?= =?us-ascii?Q?3AMamHhJkR0K1980eoxP+KPPoNhnFGfy+dIeC5C4NttX+J3P9zIpARUBLbXE?= =?us-ascii?Q?DtvgscPlfiNabuJHnqHLbMT4+I3a7iNMWWrbTDjVM+R+a7OTV18NfIYQTTOP?= =?us-ascii?Q?f3NP/roQOJQH4XKPZZ/T+fqR4sOVSHYTMgGteZGocMmpB+9DKASig5GRGRtg?= =?us-ascii?Q?WAAtUTGrJwj2MuqhdverXtV3lrh3jh9P0v8sXqqLv/ecMvr7B8kb8B6iw1v+?= =?us-ascii?Q?zfv9Je9UM7djEZbGFu7fHn33HgZNXXcJFboDaKX6rtzFdwAMajOhXrS5CQti?= =?us-ascii?Q?KIexJqAQqkE/4jJCrK/7sRIiTEtMFSQ8/Sp6+5J64nZIxxwNpzElqSlPgQWg?= =?us-ascii?Q?aMzd+ZflBZgPfnGi+gYIyD0CCbFV9AptByUhMKa47IXtXGtjNIS+aD0Rq86K?= =?us-ascii?Q?pxYbigVf1ByxfRM/Xuw02UQAIbvKLfuz6O0VIjUdIwPoyBKOF7PzdsEqj75R?= =?us-ascii?Q?Y2kEd4D83auqViXN0YFlkJSRTG+HY2sOxC5RiNEBDdojY5uXlOCdmrGoUX8R?= =?us-ascii?Q?vOPMoKSY4RaX4hF8p2yxWSknNoDV6uWleYPTVd4f4wvKj6TD2OMmNmnacT3u?= =?us-ascii?Q?3EdYYir2mu2ZymE5hOC1v6ahj6hlB9TAxjv1H+PEO253?= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: rbbn.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: PH0PR03MB6300.namprd03.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f41b982f-cbad-48ec-749e-08dd352d5533 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Jan 2025 06:24:57.5462 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 29a671dc-ed7e-4a54-b1e5-8da1eb495dc3 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: WvbdPz8XqOG9mOl+jLE3X1vATpN0DYlar1QkECzeVWXmk6osgp1W7j2upCsv6F+PazFpfgVCN9Ws14CLk/feXw== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DS7PR03MB5462 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: zgTcfaZStM1v-ciylVq-BjsUJYswy_sCYT72PnV1bJQ_1736922301 X-Mimecast-Originator: rbbn.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_PH0PR03MB63000592782B2FDF91211A03F6192PH0PR03MB6300namp_" Message-ID-Hash: ZYZJ3RJFX64DIWQC5V7HU7DJJHWEUXFQ X-Message-ID-Hash: ZYZJ3RJFX64DIWQC5V7HU7DJJHWEUXFQ X-MailFrom: alexander.vainshtein@rbbn.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-bess.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: "bess@ietf.org" , "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bbess=5D_A_question_about_duplicate_MAC_detection_in_Section_15?= =?utf-8?q?=2E1_of_draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis?= List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --_000_PH0PR03MB63000592782B2FDF91211A03F6192PH0PR03MB6300namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I have a question about the rule for detection of duplicate MAC addresses i= n Section 15.1 of draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis. The problematic text is copied below (with the relevant fragments highlight= ed) admits two interpretations: a PE that detects a MAC mobility event via local learning starts an M-secon= d timer (with a default value of M =3D 180), and if it detects N MAC moves = before the timer expires (with a default value of N =3D 5), it concludes th= at a duplicate-MAC situation has occurred I.e.: * The first MAC Move event that triggers the PE attempt to detect dupli= cation MUST be detected via local learning (and therefore results in increm= ent of the sequence number for the corresponding MAC address by the PE in q= uestion) * There is no explicit "via local learning" qualification for the conse= quent MAC Move events that are counted to decide whether the MAC address in= question is duplicate or not. IMHO this ambiguity may result in different decisions by the affected PEs. = Please consider the following scenario: 1. An EVPN BD is instantiated in PE-1, PE-2 and PE-3. In each of these P= Es it is attached to a single-homed Ethernet segment via a single AC 2. Initially MAC address X is locally learned by PE-1 3. Then X is locally learned by PE-2 that starts the M-seconds timer 4. After that X is locally learned by PE-3, PE-1, PE-3, PE- 1 and so on = - but not by PE-2 - while the M-seconds timer in PE-2 is still running. All= these events are identified by PE-2 as MAC Move events - but not via local= learning: * If PE-2 counts these MAC Move events for the purpose of duplicate = MAC detection, it declares X as duplicate and alerts the operator - even i= f it did not participate in in * Otherwise, PE-2 does not declare X as duplicate. I understand that the example above is a corner case, but. IMHO and FWIW, i= t should be resolved. Can you please clarify, which of the above interpretations of the rule is c= orrect and, in any case, clarify this point in the next revision of the dra= ft? Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha Disclaimer This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon= Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprie= tary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, re= liance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission i= s strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify= the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachmen= ts. --_000_PH0PR03MB63000592782B2FDF91211A03F6192PH0PR03MB6300namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <= /head>

Hi,

I have a question about the rule for detection of du= plicate MAC addresses in Section 15.1 of draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis.

 

The problematic text is copied below (with the relev= ant fragments highlighted) = admits two  interpretations:

 

a PE that detects a MAC mobili= ty event via local learning starts an M-second timer (with a default= value of M =3D 180), and if it detects N MAC moves = before the timer expires (with a default value of N =3D 5), it concl= udes that a duplicate-MAC situation has occurred

 

I.e.:

  • The first MAC Move event that triggers the PE attempt to detect dupli= cation MUST be detected via local learning (and therefore results in increment of the= sequence number for the corresponding MAC address by the PE in question)
  • There is no explicit “via local learning” q= ualification for the consequent MAC Move events that are counted to decide = whether the MAC address in question is duplicate or not.

    •  

    IMHO this ambiguity may result in different decision= s by the affected PEs. Please consider the following scenario:

    1. An EVPN BD is instantiated in PE-1, PE-2 and PE-3. In each of these= PEs it is attached to a single-homed Ethernet segment via a single AC=
    2. Initially MAC address X is locally learned by PE-1<= /o:p>
    3. Then X is locally learned by PE-2 that starts the M-secon= ds timer  
    4. After that X is locally learned by P= E-3, PE-1, PE-3, PE- 1 and so on - but not by PE-2 – while the M-seconds timer in PE-2 is = still running. All these events are identified by PE-2 as MAC Move events &= #8211; but not via local learning:
      1. If PE-2 counts these MAC Move events for the purpose of duplicate M= AC detection, it declares X as duplicate and alerts the operator  - ev= en if it did not participate in in
      2. Otherwise, PE-2 d= oes not declare X as duplicate.

     

    I understand that the example above is a corner case= , but. IMHO and FWIW, it should be resolved.

    Can you please clarify, which of the above interpret= ations of the rule is correct and, in any case, clarify this point in the n= ext revision of the draft?

     

    Regards, and lots= of thanks in advance,

    Sasha<= /span>

     



<= b>Disclaimer

This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information= of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/= or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disc= losure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express pe= rmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, ple= ase notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any= attachments.

--_000_PH0PR03MB63000592782B2FDF91211A03F6192PH0PR03MB6300namp_--