Re: [bess] [**EXTERNAL**] RE: CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

["Boutros, Sami" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Anoop,

Please see comments inline below in red. I updated the document with your relevant comments and uploaded it

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-04.txt

Thanks,

Sami


Technical comments



Section 4.1



I find this statement confusing



   While "local-bias" MUST be supported along with GENEVE encapsulation,

   the use of the Ethernet option-TLV is RECOMMENDED to follow the same

   procedures used by EVPN MPLS.





I'm not sure how it helps to carry an extra TLV when it is known

that its absence or presence results in identical behavior.



Sami: The new TLV is not there only for local bias! It is there for bum and leaf/root indications too. So, we can’t simply not carry it. As for the text above, we are saying setting the ESI label in the TLV will allow us to follow the same Split horizon behavior of MPLS-EVPN with no need for local bias. It is true local bias must be supported but this mechanism will work too if available given that it is optional.



I also find the encoding confusing.  Why is the Type=0, instead of

using EVPN-OPTION with a length of 0x1 instead of 0x2?

What does Type=0 indicate?  Is this assigned by IANA?



Sami: Fixed type to be EVPN-OPTION not 0, and yes we request this from IANA as per the draft text.





Section 6



What is inter-AS option B?  Can we provide a reference?



Sami: This is a well-known inter-AS option however it is described in the document itself as follow:

“For inter-AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes

   with NEXT_HOP attribute set to their IP addresses as per <xref target="RFC4271"/>.</t>”







Section 8



Doesn't IANA also need to allocate a codepoint for the

EVPN-OPTION type?



--



Editorial comments



Entire document



- 3 of the references listed as drafts are now RFCs.  Those should

  be fixed both in the reference section and in the text.



- There are several uses of GENEVE and Geneve in the document.

  Recommend replacing GENEVE with Geneve, including in the

  abbreviations and terminology section.



Section 1



Change



   This EVPN control plane extension will allow an NVE to express what

   Geneve option TLV types it is capable of receiving from, or sending

   to, over the Geneve tunnel with its peers.



To



   This EVPN control plane extension will allow an NVE to express what

   Geneve option TLV types it is capable of receiving or sending

   over the Geneve tunnel with its peers.





Section 4



Change



   This document adds an extension to the [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03#ref-I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*ref-I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve__;Iw!!OSsGDw!exKF4W-AN6UMWhBDbmrRhWuKAJWoOMZJXwfAOG8JzpPu08y7cXY41yryLsiyXg$>>]

   encapsulation that are relevant to the operation of EVPN.



To



   This document adds an extension to the [I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03#ref-I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*ref-I-D.ietf-nvo3-geneve__;Iw!!OSsGDw!exKF4W-AN6UMWhBDbmrRhWuKAJWoOMZJXwfAOG8JzpPu08y7cXY41yryLsiyXg$>>]

   encapsulation that is relevant to the operation of EVPN.



End



Section 4.1



Change



   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-overlay] describes when an ingress NVE uses

   ingress replication to flood unknown unicast traffic to the egress

   NVEs, the ingress NVE needs to indicate to the egress NVE that the

   Encapsulated packet is a BUM traffic type.



To



   [I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-overlay] describes when an ingress NVE uses

   ingress replication to flood unknown unicast traffic to the egress

   NVEs, the ingress NVE needs to indicate to the egress NVE that the

   Encapsulated packet is a BUM packet.





Change



   For GENEVE, we need a bit to for this purpose.



To



   For GENEVE, we need a bit for this purpose.





Expand first use of AC and add to abbreviations and terminology.



ecnapsulations -> encapsulations





GENVE -> Geneve



(There are 2 instances of this.)





"20- bit MPLS label" -> "20-bit MPLS label"





Add figure captions for the 2 figures showing the TLVs.



Expand first use of ES and ESI and add to abbreviations and terminology.



Change



   The ESI-label value is encoded in the high-order 20 bits

   of the Source-ESI field.



To



   The ESI-label value is encoded in the high-order 20 bits

   of the Source-ID field.





Change



   The egress NVEs that make use of ESIs in the data path because they

   have a local multi-homed ES or support [RFC8317

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8317 [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8317__;!!OSsGDw!exKF4W-AN6UMWhBDbmrRhWuKAJWoOMZJXwfAOG8JzpPu08y7cXY41yrtjgdm9A$>>] SHOULD advertise

   their Ethernet A-D per-ES routes along with the Geneve tunnel sub-TLV

   and in addition to the ESI-label Extended Community.



Remove "and".

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 8:47 AM Boutros, Sami <sboutros=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I support the publication and not aware of any IPR.

Thanks,

Sami
From: "UTTARO, JAMES" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 7:29 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*
Resent-From: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Resent-To: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 7:29 AM

Support.

Thanks,
              Jim Uttaro

From: BESS <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 5:04 AM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [bess] CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*

As co-author, I support this document for publication as standards track RFC.
Not aware of any relevant IPR.

Thanks.
Jorge

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 11:00 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03*
Folks

Please note this WG last call is for version 03 of the draft (not 02 as stated in the subject line of the email)

The link to the draft is: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03 - EVPN control plane for Geneve<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve/__;!!BhdT!3tci5SzjjkNZnS9HTgZ4_0eO7MKI-qOtnFvfS68Ac-DC-0H7t88nFLp5C8I$>

Apologies for the error.

Matthew

From: BESS <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, 28 September 2021 at 09:56
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation Poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-02
This email starts a two-week working group last call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03 [1]

Please review the draft and send any comments to the BESS list. Also, please indicate if you support publishing the draft as a Standards Track RFC.

This poll runs until the 15th October 2021

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this document, 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 an author or a contributor of this document, please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The document won't progress without answers from all the authors and contributors.
There are currently no IPR disclosures.

In addition, we are polling for knowledge of implementations of this draft, per the BESS policy in [2].

Thank you,
Matthew & Stephane


[1]  draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-02 - EVPN control plane for Geneve<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve/__;!!BhdT!3tci5SzjjkNZnS9HTgZ4_0eO7MKI-qOtnFvfS68Ac-DC-0H7t88nFLp5C8I$>
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw__;!!BhdT!3tci5SzjjkNZnS9HTgZ4_0eO7MKI-qOtnFvfS68Ac-DC-0H7t88nJ1roR2g$>


_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess [ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess__;!!OSsGDw!exKF4W-AN6UMWhBDbmrRhWuKAJWoOMZJXwfAOG8JzpPu08y7cXY41yrRQSH3eQ$>