Re: [bess] Poll for early allocation request for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label

<stephane.litkowski@orange.com> Thu, 13 December 2018 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane.litkowski@orange.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 CFA1912D84D for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 00:40:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 pnMnCp5Rl1Yy for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 00:40:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta135.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90B2F12D4F0 for <bess@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 00:40:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfednr04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.68]) by opfednr20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 43FnF874mvz20Sc; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 09:40:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.21]) by opfednr04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 43FnF84l87z1xp4; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 09:40:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe]) by OPEXCLILM6C.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d9f5:9741:7525:a199%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 09:40:28 +0100
From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
To: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Poll for early allocation request for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label
Thread-Index: AdSRY0PBVt0YG9tEQjai9rg/QSu3AAAU/xjQABrSiYAAGeYBEAAAKnEQAA0DfSA=
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 08:40:27 +0000
Message-ID: <23071_1544690428_5C121AFC_23071_279_4_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B7826C4@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <30268_1544540975_5C0FD32F_30268_272_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B780A07@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AAB7DB407@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BL0PR05MB5025A304740429E31500B76CD4A70@BL0PR05MB5025.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AAB7DD86A@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <16253F7987E4F346823E305D08F9115AAB7DD86A@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.2]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B7826C4OPEXCLILMA4corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/IYOZ8wI3LeBJeqjvzqKsXxAxUA8>
Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for early allocation request for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label
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: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 08:40:35 -0000

Hi Jingrong,

Speaking as co-chair, what I need to know from this discussion is if there is a blocking point for the early allocation.
Yes, of course the draft will require some polishing, clarifications... as Jeffrey has mentioned, this is not a WGLC.

Based on your last sentence (and the overall discussion), I don't see any real blocking point but I want this to be crystal clear. So please state clearly if you object to the early allocation or not and why. What is important to me is to ensure that the encoding is stable and does not require any change.


Thanks,

Stephane



From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xiejingrong
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 03:24
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for early allocation request for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label


s/inter-area/intra-area/g

From: Xiejingrong
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 10:22 AM
To: 'Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang' <zzhang@juniper.net>et>; stephane.litkowski@orange.com; bess@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Poll for early allocation request for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label

Hi Jeffrey,

Let me take the section 2.2.3 for explaination:

   In summary, labels can be allocated and advertised the following
   ways:

   1.  A central authority allocates per-VPN/BD/ES labels from the DCB.
       PEs advertise the labels with an indication that they are from
       the DCB.

   2.  A central authority allocates per-VPN/BD/ES labels from a few
       common context label spaces, and allocate labels from the DCB to
       identify those context label spaces.  PEs advertise the VPN/BD
       labels along with the context-identifying labels.

   3.  A central authority assigns disjoint label blocks from those a //
       few context label spaces to each PE, and allocate labels from the
       DCB to identify the context label spaces.  Each PE allocates
       labels from its assigned label block independently for its
       segmented S-PMSI, along with the context-identifying labels.

   Option 1 is simplest, but it requires that all the PEs set aside a
   common label block for the DCB that is large enough for all the
   VPNs/BDs/ESes combined.  Option 3 is needed only for segmented
   selective tunnels that are set up dynamically.  Multiple options
   could be used in any combination depending on the deployment
   situation.

Option-1 is simplest and I like it very much (anyone who don't like simplification?). For Inter-area EVPN deployment scenarios, it is strong and simple enough I think.
But when it is not the suitable case, and Option-2 has to be used, I think things are becoming complex: You still need a DCB from 'main/default' label-space, though this DCB is very small, which maybe only include ONE label. And then the ONE label is used as 'context-label'. While for BIER case, BIER header itself can act as a 'BIER-Context' naturally. Am I understanding correctly ?
For Option-3, I do understand it as two sub-options, Option-3a if there is enough number of Labels in the DCB, and Option-3b if there isn't and the ONE 'DCB' label is used as context-label. Each one is difficult for me to consider the development and deployment. One the other hand, the segmented MVPN can use the 'UMH' mechanism to select the right upstream-assigned VpnLabel to download to forwarding states.

So my summarized comments:
DCB is similar to VNI very much, but the MPLS labels in the "main/default" space is very costly due to the 'per-platform' (RFC5331) allocation.
DCB is similar to SRGB very much, but DCB requires 'absolute' unique value other than the 'unique' index in SRGB(at least has such mechanism).
Use of context-label from a DCB can be comparable to the use of the 'BIER-specific' context in case of BIER.
Use of 'dynamic' allocation with DCB mechanism in segmented MVPN deployment may add extra complexity.

I suggest this draft to make more clear what the use cases are, what it really want to solve, and what it don't.

Thanks.
Jingrong



From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzhang@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 10:42 PM
To: Xiejingrong <xiejingrong@huawei.com<mailto:xiejingrong@huawei.com>>; stephane.litkowski@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Poll for early allocation request for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label

Jingrong,

Please see zzh> below.

From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Xiejingrong
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 8:14 PM
To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com>; bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for early allocation request for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label

Objection.

Zzh> Please note that this is not a LC for the draft. This is the poll for early allocation for the DCB-flag and an extended community type.

I remember I have raised my concerns, but I didn't find the response.

Zzh> Sorry for missing those. Please see below.

Copy the concerns I have listed before:

1.   The problem stated by this draft is valid, and the proposed method is useful for some of the listed problem. For example, EVPN BUM who uses MPLS identification and dataplane.
Zzh> Do you think the proposed solution is reasonable for the problems? If so, we would like to see early allocation is done. The allocation is temporary - it would time out after some time if the draft does not become a RFC.

2.   EVPN BUM using vxlan/vni identification may not need a MPLS label to identify the vpn/tenant.
Zzh> The draft is about "aggregation label", so vxlan/vni is irrelevant. On the other hand, in case of vxlan/vni, the VNI is no different from a DCB label in concept (so the solution of using DCB label should be reasonable).

3.   For MVPN who has a UMH(Upstream Multicast Hop) selection procedure, the exist using of upstream-assigned VpnLabel can be optimized to only populate to forwarding-state when there are c-multicast flows selecting the specific UMH PE.
Zzh> If that is a better solution, perhaps a separate draft can be written. The solution in this draft is simpler and in concept no different from vxlan case.

4.   For an End-to-End deployment of MVPN who spans multi-ASes as the way stated in <draft-geng-bier-sr-multicast-deployment>, the allocation of a global-unique label is useful and possible. But operators may need to be very careful to allocate the very limited MPLS labels. Because, MPLS labels has been divided to SRLB and SRGB, and SRGB may have been again divided by SR-domains according to <draft-filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect-12>.
Zzh> What's relevant here is the second part of your text above (the "But operators ...") - though that is the same point #5 below (please see my response below).

5.   For segmented MVPN deployment, the further divide of the MPLS Label is also difficult when thinking of the above.
Zzh> Please see section 2.2.2 of this draft.

6.   For BIER, is the BIER proto=1 indicating a BIER-specific unique VpnLabel ? or a Per-platform (RFC5331) downstream-assigned unique label ?  if it is the later one, how about adding a new BIER proto value to indicating a BIER-specific unique VpnLabel ?  And then a static Context (BIER) can be optional to the dynamic advertising of a Context ?
Zzh> In BIER header, proto=1 indicates downstream-assigned label. There is no need to define a new BIER specific proto value. The reason is that "downstream-assigned label" just means that it is a label in the "main/default" label space of the receiving router, and a DCB label is just that. Nothing is BIER specific here. I believe Tony also responded to you (and in BIER WG).
Zzh> Thanks!
Zzh> Jeffrey

Jingrong


From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of stephane.litkowski@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 11:10 PM
To: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Subject: [bess] Poll for early allocation request for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label

Hi WG,

We have received an early allocation request for the draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label.

Please raise your concerns if you object to this request and if you think that the document is not mature enough.
Feel also free to support this request.

We will wait until next Monday (12/17) to gather feedbacks.

Thanks,

Stephane



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.