Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-06.txt

Anoop Ghanwani <> Tue, 23 January 2018 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E3812D852 for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:46:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IJ0eDM92t5pM for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DABBE12D850 for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:46:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id s3so25742553qtb.10 for <>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:46:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=+VJzi7SfGnP9RiFSHVY7hzktI8lR0UHctjKPEdTkh5Q=; b=sV/9uygcrPQEgNJod9jI1BkQbrfthVbRaGBWHkcdYjl+jYPeTpp/8XMeF7quEIfHV5 CQB7BBJKpxrFJ3NRR4X3iY8737QX2ZWq0Mf0I9ghA7Brlmq3jbG3zeo/k1i3NF4wphel zG4juvDGlQtPVUNxeBrNMiGrnqObD0wc1QiqFd4Y5z0NSiPH3dbknwYSdDg+4y5k7nPF a7u0NrWjo2iw0OSrEkCQZNKV1Yev9O2r/6LSbfRfvdWr8PIfVLLywYwWD9o+qREMtUt6 Wu9HyxTtnORAMj+OiV8RnusfkLg2/EFvEvHxjHfBgQqn+HfNTc20QkNUyZBhUzY2HWdV YgTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=+VJzi7SfGnP9RiFSHVY7hzktI8lR0UHctjKPEdTkh5Q=; b=Aujkkz9o9WYlv2Xt56gPyuqPq0619uEuPIJrB5FgDP9uFmID6nQ8KXcdYxtYnW7+Yn BbpMTr4YjWW7eIzUGi37cOfU2LVlwSfqUwLCbesrKlIghQsWE7A/Gl1CyrNR71W6kZp7 ovh74G8JP6bqS6ba6nIcUkPyHkCjyMcn16ZisDB3QE1AKNRAwLOpZsiISx0MO8sAwdAA sF9ML0CBmnKoMc3ggc22qBU/Ed/NmR6ig/5e1ue4MnCg7OPm5HG3HDRvpY9SD3BsCLOM EbUI3Fu94bg9C7f8DSVtJl4gdIR3Vvw0AxVb9xPTFPmbMTShrJwS7R5P6oJ+8YlzDxSq MGRw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyte8vLUNbWq05PFM9QFhufbqJDCJ4r0A0B5lj4dgPRVUoESjymwr vbQnRSYrPvdbWj7pZAkWdQMQNfAuWfOqQXIXbP5uqu4k
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226lvydS2ENDKl1q3paHTnmyhxzgvq9T08GpFCeXOeGZ93G02ez93cg584D+ML0LkT+ADSp3rQRPF9GBc8CMtfs=
X-Received: by with SMTP id p36mr1164724qtd.92.1516668409709; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:46:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:46:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:46:49 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: pRig1CsDR0iKUo7LskytfKRrU4g
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0566c4cd898a056366e1aa"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-06.txt
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: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:46:53 -0000

I have a question about the following paragraph in this draft:

   The solution specified in this document uses the 'Unknown MAC' route
   which is advertised into a given DC by each of the DC's GWs.  This
   route is a regular EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement route in which the MAC
   Address Length is set to 48, the MAC address is set to
   00:00:00:00:00:00, the IP length is set to 0, and the ESI field is
   set to the DC GW's I-ESI.

How does an ingress NVE tell the difference between an unknown MAC DA that
is reachable (but perhaps aged out) within the current DC versus a MAC DA
that is reachable in a remote DC?  In the first case, the correct action
would be to replicate to all NVEs that participate in the incoming packet's
VN; in the second case the correct action is to unicast it to the DC GW.
Is this assumption that the DC GW will then take over the job of
replicating to the NVEs within the DC?

It would be good if some clarification can be added to the document.


On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:11 PM, <> wrote:

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.
>         Title           : Interconnect Solution for EVPN Overlay networks
>         Authors         : Jorge Rabadan
>                           Senthil Sathappan
>                           Wim Henderickx
>                           Ali Sajassi
>                           John Drake
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-06.txt
>         Pages           : 27
>         Date            : 2018-01-22
> Abstract:
>    This document describes how Network Virtualization Overlays (NVO) can
>    be connected to a Wide Area Network (WAN) in order to extend the
>    layer-2 connectivity required for some tenants. The solution analyzes
>    the interaction between NVO networks running Ethernet Virtual Private
>    Networks (EVPN) and other L2VPN technologies used in the WAN, such as
>    Virtual Private LAN Services (VPLS), VPLS extensions for Provider
>    Backbone Bridging (PBB-VPLS), EVPN or PBB-EVPN. It also describes how
>    the existing Technical Specifications apply to the Interconnection
>    and extends the EVPN procedures needed in some cases. In particular,
>    this document describes how EVPN routes are processed on Gateways
>    (GWs) that interconnect EVPN-Overlay and EVPN-MPLS networks, as well
>    as the Interconnect Ethernet Segment (I-ES) to provide multi-homing,
>    and the use of the Unknown MAC route to avoid MAC scale issues on
>    Data Center Network Virtualization Edge (NVE) devices.
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list