Re: [bess] A question about RFC 8317

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Fri, 21 December 2018 07:42 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 42CEA12F295 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:42:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 IqOzgbiGGQRo for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:42:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.bemta26.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta26.messagelabs.com [85.158.142.1]) (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 176A31276D0 for <bess@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:42:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [85.158.142.103] (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits)) by server-1.bemta.az-a.eu-central-1.aws.symcld.net id 54/57-05398-0699C1C5; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:42:24 +0000
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA2WTbUxTVxjHOT333l4JJZeC45HA4jr3UrVdO8x WN0UiXxrN4rJkiyMSvYVL26S9YFti3YfJxjIVIhhnhb4gMhipdKliXDJfEghrBjLZHJtiZB1C mQ42ihsvE3Fu9/YWt2VfTn7n/P/nef7n5BwaK+/Kc2jO7eIcPGtTUanEBvX9NZrd3txduvfOG AzBPi82BKJFhuj9PynDXV8PaYgP1hAG/2QbMkycPC0vlBsnGwLIeHypizS2ty/KjMPvX5cbo7 eGZMZ4yzT1OlVMWnlThXsPaZn2l1R6uwn3/Oy71SgWJGpRKk0wH2OIdf8uEydK5qgM5iL9cmk yiiDYf4yqRStoitkM50JRShSyGA+CyMJYwoWZEQRT8xFCdGUyz4I/fIkUOYt5DgaCfqEuLfAr MFO9RVwmmGdg6s48FlnBlMDZByG5yEqmHsH56AGRVwjN2uqaEyUR8wT8MfCpTGTMZMOtiZYEA 5MFY99+RUm8EiZjj0jJb4LRn1qRtL4aFj5rSHIeDLXUITEzMMMUfNJ9mZQEDdzzeLDEr8Gjni 9JMTMwT8P5n0sk/wSC2XuhpGct9HlvJ/faILh0LMlPQueRMULaEMfQ+PBEsnMuBL6px5JwkIK R+laZdORS6A/MEkfRet+/TudL3OphBHOxj0hf4poy4Ip3gpBMPIx2PsAS62Dm65Ykr4OO1l+S /AJ0zQ2i/6+vh6WFWkrip2DkuoeUmrUj8A0eIZdN358ewsum43Vj8lNI0Yk2mhxWs8VlZ602j V6n0+j1+Zp8zYsbNmrZdzSslqvSlHK8y8EKqpbd59Q699tLbWVannOdQ8KzLtuLFz9HsYPmXr SKlqlWKsYbcncp000VZfstrNOy21Fl45y9KJemVaCAJkHLcHBmzl1utQl/Y1kGOk2VpYg3CrL CWcnanVazJA2g7fTNnr8aMd3ZdKgJ0+OJMZ4YD4U7ApjuOzwfwEqCr+C5nGxFWOzAiCUsVfzj Bsv/bwjl5WQqUEpKijKtknPYra7/6lMom0aqTMVbYpU0K+96nGNKiCgTIqZuTUR0sf9IOdVoz Wrdb/W9P75ZsO6qul+vQZuK2zpCF/a5385741Toyo1tW23k7fRr5QWbvzux/YvIB6vyzWc9N+ zTqi260IeBM3i65le1fuc4zjhwUV/kx8Oml57nNxXbX6052RwqUheEy+8sps00p9uu1fgjhaG qDPWFq4V1O/e2PdzxQ+TmyzvCXSrCaWH1a7HDyf4NJccku3oEAAA=
X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-228.messagelabs.com!1545378138!4066246!1
X-Originating-IP: [52.41.248.36]
X-SYMC-ESS-Client-Auth: mailfrom-relay-check=pass
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 9.14.24; banners=ecitele.com,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 22525 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2018 07:42:22 -0000
Received: from us-west-2a.mta.dlp.protect.symantec.com (HELO EUR03-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) (52.41.248.36) by server-14.tower-228.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA256 encrypted SMTP; 21 Dec 2018 07:42:22 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ECI365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ecitele-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=fYiIzQtANG5UC9L0y9e1wiFrpjOqI7CvJPIijcLCELw=; b=EC7pvc27ThRMeD8hxNNkp7JHcRVrE2RIOFAVxr7m0BoFfmeB78+f0igPrUCkSP2bMD+PsgEO9ECLe2Yo1VRGhtIcFx550wiWgYWU5jdbbYcVTtEFuX6Od5XNxosiPAWw9Xtx5ZILpkesA2vR7TmE6TiPtFwUO+zPW7kiFnPkm5s=
Received: from AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (52.135.146.29) by AM0PR03MB4945.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (20.178.22.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1446.19; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:42:14 +0000
Received: from AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::dd0e:6be2:6377:6f6d]) by AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::dd0e:6be2:6377:6f6d%4]) with mapi id 15.20.1446.022; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:42:14 +0000
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: "Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com> (sajassi@cisco.com)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>
CC: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" <ssalam@cisco.com>, "John E Drake (jdrake@juniper.net)" <jdrake@juniper.net>, "ju1738@att.com" <ju1738@att.com>, "sboutros@vmware.com" <sboutros@vmware.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: A question about RFC 8317
Thread-Index: AdSYUr9cSCgYcdt7R1u6vcshLnORdAAP3KGAABufoYc=
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:42:14 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR03MB3828D22EFE13890EB08419459DB80@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM0PR03MB38289E905EE9421BA529727B9DBF0@AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>, <7A95B86B-03C4-4D11-8A37-FFCB98BFA44B@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <7A95B86B-03C4-4D11-8A37-FFCB98BFA44B@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [40.67.250.72]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM0PR03MB4945; 6:LwMhChK7KGteuEc8LD2jUIRqc/4nmNtDnUHlIwAqxsfFiNjYnRo4jRGVm8kfhDinyISzjkycSAf5Y/WD5X48xlxoGUQNLiYkbAWp59qbGH6UOVsGqinT/y80MV56C/nnvaZNJ/W5ulEr+/kncti79ZZQRI9pDiOS0ZI2xxmIFj6x54gOBRK5VszLvf/iokbmWiED3sxw3cr9KPKqcYTCpAN0vGI4PRefWkpRNfg/YOLBE5dDNe2AKE0DzlDJYhdAI9UyZLZd90EluVfz9kqFL/2b2KySxOu+PXyz+wZ6NSs0kwJSZqpKG3RlML5Sx3oWY3/F4doc/unU7c2h/fuUn+xi/ZccttpKgK4pBmejLr9PvgcnkVwZ1sZqAlVMHu6xwravlbbkw7OVrOw2yiNsSKxwZOTGu1pQp+s3eakUcxxscOKl9Ap9BUfY1u8Hia88aAFug9uDjtN7HBCowc4p1w==; 5:hVqn5AB7F3mbT+93K7FC7ncFSFmT7ysawl9o7QDOWkUQIRwTlxSeE/fwCqY3QFJG3ucLai8orcO/7NJnJ9/mk3Hr6uSd92dAwwLTPmSr/41WCjXmLfspic/5JcawYwnBmX9xnuiHd/vRjLL57AAWex9/vE75ATeHMnzJqNvNgQs=; 7:BHHjnSicWQ13eorPFZjjwAUxa7WcuiihDm/ZbouVnKQwhhAXzl9ZlTYk1htA2xtsw72kgmq+QPTOXtfOtT1l99uMFzVowEglP8f14O8lIk4oIT36PEPCFd7f+uAsvJwlGbfLmRThyB6UE9rEuUc85Q==
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: cea812b7-9717-4780-72a1-08d66717d322
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600074)(711020)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(49563074)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR03MB4945;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR03MB4945:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM0PR03MB49457714F23B05D9382A29929DB80@AM0PR03MB4945.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(3230021)(999002)(5005026)(102415395)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3231475)(944501520)(4983020)(52105112)(3002001)(93006095)(93001095)(6055026)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564045)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(20161123560045)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:AM0PR03MB4945; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM0PR03MB4945;
x-forefront-prvs: 0893636978
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(396003)(346002)(376002)(51874003)(199004)(189003)(33656002)(71190400001)(6246003)(71200400001)(2906002)(14454004)(4326008)(68736007)(106356001)(99936001)(478600001)(72206003)(53936002)(6116002)(3846002)(55016002)(105586002)(6306002)(54896002)(54556002)(9686003)(236005)(486006)(76176011)(446003)(11346002)(26005)(476003)(102836004)(5660300001)(7696005)(86362001)(53546011)(97736004)(186003)(606006)(733005)(74316002)(8676002)(81156014)(81166006)(6436002)(25786009)(8936002)(229853002)(99286004)(54906003)(66066001)(14444005)(256004)(316002)(7736002)(6506007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR03MB4945; H:AM0PR03MB3828.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ecitele.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: e7FYeuSFFERsqLzU7yyHbaMIVd2643SO7dVgRKAKcBcA1VO6PulqGVC+xYp3R1vW1LRB0EppOiT0n3hYPqmeM5pqeEUR2e0JYhYxxWsjS1SPz2E/CShu0tPCUn0+yzIBpMHpAS6t1oVIEvbQLseQ6VBonZJsBaHtU01iju2Dt673GY2qWYeBskggnNumip6C3u05agxWzsvL+hEJDSNKHwkEbq+zE/LpNnIXieuQY5uc/s9PyOgIEydh6o6CzZXiUPXvv5EIJcKd/G+EzpKHJdcO2BvwZlGcTpLzyz5eQKCiVMJV5U6deZFmP8+w59yW
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_AM0PR03MB3828D22EFE13890EB08419459DB80AM0PR03MB3828eurp_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: cea812b7-9717-4780-72a1-08d66717d322
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Dec 2018 07:42:14.2822 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2c514a61-08de-4519-b4c0-921fef62c42a
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR03MB4945
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/qRfvMhTVWx_TgwSLNHvua2PPRtI>
Subject: Re: [bess] A question about RFC 8317
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: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:42:30 -0000

Jorge,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
My conclusion js tbat the "two RTs" scheme should be used with special care in E-tree solutions. This was not my impression from the first reading of 8317.

Since the "two RTs" scheme is very popular in hub-and-spoke" solutiobs for IP VPN, the fact that it is not the universal answer in EVPN E-Tree deserves some expla ation IMHO- but I do not see how this can be done in IETF.

Thumb typed by Sasha Vainshtein

________________________________
From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 7:31:20 PM
To: Alexander Vainshtein; Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com> (sajassi@cisco.com)
Cc: Samer Salam (ssalam); John E Drake (jdrake@juniper.net); ju1738@att.com; sboutros@vmware.com; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A question about RFC 8317

Hi Sasha,

What you are explaining is correct.

PE3 would flood anything for which MAC DA is unknown to both local ESes. That is normal behavior, only that in this case CE-1’s MAC will not be learned on PE3 until CE-1 hashes the traffic to PE3 and not only PE2 (which will happen if you have a decent number of flows). *Technically speaking*, the E-Tree solution works since you don’t have leaf-to-leaf communication. However, I would not use the two RT solution in this scenario since it could create unnecessary flooding to local ESes as you describe.

For this scenario I would always use a single RT per EVI, ingress filtering for unicast (based on the leaf indication on MAC/IP routes), and egress filtering for BUM based on leaf label, as explained in RFC8317.

My two cents.

Thank you.
Jorge


From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
Date: Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:30 PM
To: "Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com> (sajassi@cisco.com)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
Cc: "Samer Salam (ssalam)" <ssalam@cisco.com>om>, "John E Drake (jdrake@juniper.net)" <jdrake@juniper.net>et>, "ju1738@att.com" <ju1738@att.com>om>, "sboutros@vmware.com" <sboutros@vmware.com>om>, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>om>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: A question about RFC 8317

Ali and all,
I have read RFC 8317<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8317>17>, and I would like to clarify a question dealing with Leaf ACs of an EVPN-based E-Tree service on All-Active Multi-Homed Ethernet Segments (MH ES).

The reference model for my question is shown in the Embedded diagram below.


[cid:image002.png@01D49865.895588B0]

It shows an EVPN E-tree service with one Root customer site and two leaf customer sites, where each Leaf CE is dual-homed to the same pair of PEs using two different All-Active multi-homed Ethernet Segments.

Suppose that the scheme with two RTs (one identifying the Root site and the other identifying the Leaf sites) is used as described in 4.3.1.

Suppose also that each MAC-VRF uses per MAC-VRF label assignment as defined in section 9.2.1 of RFC 7432, i.e., advertises exactly one EVPN application label that identifies it as the Egress MAC-VRF, while the disposition of the received Ethernet frame within this MAC-VRF is based on the destination MAC address. In this case the per MAC-VRF label can be also used as the “aliasing” label in the per EVI EAD route.

PE-1 will receive and accept per EVI EAD routes for both MH ES for PE-2 and PE-3 with the corresponding “aliasing” labels.

Suppose that MAC-VRF in PE-2 learns some {MAC, IP} pair  {X, Y}  locally from the Leaf CE-1 and advertises this pair in the EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement route. With the “two RTs” scheme this route will be accepted by the MAC-VRF in PE-1 but it will not be accepted by the MAC-VRF in PE3. As a consequence:

-          MAC-VRF in PE-1 will know that this pair has been learned from the “blue” all-active MH ES, and therefore can decide to send locally received unicast frames with destination MAC address X to PE-3 using the corresponding “aliasing label”. No other labels will be included in the EVN encapsulation of such  frames because they are received from the Root AC.

-          MAC-VRF in PE-3 will not know anything about MAC address X, therefore, when it receives an EVPN-encapsulated frame with this destination, it will treat it as an “unknown unicast” and flood it to both Leaf CE-1 (where it should be sent) and to Leaf CE-2 (where it should not be sent).

Is this what is really supposed to happen in this scenario? If not, what did I miss in the E-tree EVPN solution?

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com


___________________________________________________________________________

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.
___________________________________________________________________________


___________________________________________________________________________

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.
___________________________________________________________________________