Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-singh-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags -> adopted

[Thomas Morin <[e-mail]>]

Hi working group,

We have a new working group document.

Authors, can you please repost as
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags ?

Thank you,

-Thomas/Martin


2015-10-26, Ravi Singh:
> Hi Thomas, Martin
>> Before adopting this draft, we would like hear people actually experiencing pain
>> related to not solving this issue and hear about implementations in actual
>> products.
>
> In a network where some BGP-VPLS PEs have ability to insert CW and some do not, not implementing section 3 has potential to cause the PW to not come up or cause dropped packets (depending on implementation).
> Section 3 of this draft is implemented in JunOS. See last paragraph on
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/topics/concept/vpls-bgp-control-word-overview.html
> This was implemented in response to a specific-network-deployment-issue.
>
> The key aspect of RFC4761 that necessitates the text of section 3 of this draft is that the NLRI-advertising-PE is predicating on all other PEs in the same VPLS, that they must or must-not insert the CW, for example, regardless of whether they have the capability or not. [See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4761#section-3.2.4]
> This is in contrast to the proposed modification (for a different purpose) where this PE is just advertising its ability (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-00#section-2)
>
> The proposed text in section 3 provides a way around presumption of other-PEs' abilities.
> Section 4 provides an extension of the same intent for a deployment where the transport LSP maybe a p2mp LSP.
> Section 5 generalizes the previous sections as deployed to multi-homing scenarios.
>
> Both p2mp and multi-homing have some deployments and may run into the issue.
>
> Regards
> Ravi
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 12:29 AM
>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Ravi
>> Singh <[e-mail]>; Kireeti Kompella <[e-mail]>;
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-singh-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags
>>
>> Authors of draft-singh-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags, working group,
>>
>> The support base for this proposal is not large.
>> Before adopting this draft, we would like hear people actually experiencing pain
>> related to not solving this issue and hear about implementations in actual
>> products.
>>
>> Let's consider this poll for adoption open until we hear more.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Thomas/Martin
>>
>>
>> [e-mail] :
>>> Hello working group,
>>>
>>> This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
>>> draft-singh-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-01 [1] as a working group item.
>>>
>>> Please send comments to the list and state if you support adoption or
>>> not (in the later case, please also state the reasons).
>>>
>>> This poll runs until **September 29th**.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that
>>> applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
>>> compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for
>>> more details).
>>>
>>> ==> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor please
>>> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
>>> relevant IPR.
>>>
>>> The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from
>>> each author and contributor.
>>>
>>> If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please
>>> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet
>>> been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Martin & Thomas
>>> bess chairs
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-singh-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>