[bess] [Mail regarding rfc7432]Could you clarify which IP address we use to construct P2P tunnel for ingress replication.

"huangyang (E)" <yang.huang@huawei.com> Mon, 01 July 2019 06:45 UTC

Return-Path: <yang.huang@huawei.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 A47A812000F for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 23:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 QRO9zebccn7q for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 23:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 6875912000E for <bess@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 23:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A88899B448B1B5EDF84E for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 07:45:42 +0100 (IST)
Received: from dggeme709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.105) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 07:45:42 +0100
Received: from dggeme759-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.105) by dggeme709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:45:40 +0800
Received: from dggeme759-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.7.64.73]) by dggeme759-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.7.64.73]) with mapi id 15.01.1591.008; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 14:45:39 +0800
From: "huangyang (E)" <yang.huang@huawei.com>
To: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Mail regarding rfc7432]Could you clarify which IP address we use to construct P2P tunnel for ingress replication.
Thread-Index: AdUv2H24NOVVHl9xQsCfz4sb4tmW4A==
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 06:45:39 +0000
Message-ID: <ed17722cfcc5422cb3a37c636fe968aa@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.217.172]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ed17722cfcc5422cb3a37c636fe968aahuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/DTqyyjuzXUH0uLMvJv2x6jO9-p0>
Subject: [bess] [Mail regarding rfc7432]Could you clarify which IP address we use to construct P2P tunnel for ingress replication.
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: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 06:45:47 -0000

Hi WG,

In the charpter 11.2 of RFC 7432:

11.2.  P-Tunnel Identification
"...+ If the PE that originates the advertisement uses ingress
replication for the P-tunnel for EVPN, the route MUST include the
PMSI Tunnel attribute with the Tunnel Type set to Ingress
Replication and the Tunnel Identifier set to a routable address of
the PE."

a routable address of the PE is not so strict. And does this mean
we use the Tunnel Identifier to construct P2P tunnel for ingress
replication, or we use the Originating Router's IP Address in the
IMET route key, or they are equivalent meaning?

And I see it use the BGP Next hop to construct P2P tunnel for BUM
ingress relication in RFC8365, Should Originating Router's IP Address,
the IP address of BGP Next hop, Tunnel Identifier in PMSI, be the same
IP address?

Now, this may cause interact problems when it implements differently.
Could you clarify this? Thanks.

Brgds,

Yang Huang