Re: [bess] EVPN VPWS BDF forwarding behavior at MH site

Yes, Jim Uttaro, it is related to FXC, please let me know your comments on
the below proposal.

Regards,
Gangadhar

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 6:45 PM UTTARO, JAMES <ju1738@att.com> wrote:

> *I assume this discussion applies to FXC ( Flexible Cross Connect )..*
>
>
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *              Jim Uttaro*
>
>
>
> *From:* BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * gangadhara reddy
> chavva
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 10, 2019 7:29 AM
> *To:* Thirumavalavan Periyannan (thiperiy) <thiperiy@cisco.com>
> *Cc:* bess@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bess] EVPN VPWS BDF forwarding behavior at MH site
>
>
>
> Hi Thiru,
>
>
>
> here is the clarifications for your questions.
>
>
>
> this is basically primary PE reach ability /  availability can be
> determined through BFD/Multihop BFD, in this case FRR switch can happen
> very quickly at the remote PE, control plane convergence later.
>
>
>
> please see in line answers for the below questions:
>
> for faster convergence if we can install the route such that BDF can allow
> the traffic from remote PE towards to multi homed segment, we can forward
> the traffic received from the remote PE.
>
>
>
> Gangadhar >> this explains the route programming at multi homed site, if
> elected PE is BDF, program the label path, so that traffic received from
> remote PE will be send to multi homed CE.
>
>
>
> at the same time we shouldn't allow the traffic from multi homed site this
> leads to duplicate traffic on the remote PE. to achieve this we should not
> program the path from multi home site towards remote PE until this PE
> elected as DF for that VPWS instance.
>
>
>
> Gangadhar >> again this is at BDF, we shouldn't allow the traffic from
> multi homed site CE to remote PE, for this BDF should not program the path
> towards remote PE, so at BDF if there is any traffic from CE will be get
> dropped at BDF.
>
>
>
>
>
> I hope this will clarify your question.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gangadhar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 2:50 AM Thirumavalavan Periyannan (thiperiy) <
> thiperiy@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Gangadhara,
>
>
>
> How remote PE detect the DF failure? It’s based on EVI/AD Withdraw message
> from DF PE if so then NDF PE also received this route and changed its DF
> status at the same time Remote PE changed its nexthop to NEW DF PE.
>
>
>
> The below info is not clear, could you please help me to understand.
>
>
>
> for faster convergence if we can install the route such that BDF can allow
> the traffic from remote PE towards to multi homed segment, we can forward
> the traffic received from the remote PE.
>
>
>
> at the same time we shouldn't allow the traffic from multi homed site this
> leads to duplicate traffic on the remote PE. to achieve this we should not
> program the path from multi home site towards remote PE until this PE
> elected as DF for that VPWS instance.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thiru
>
>
> On 09-Aug-2019, at 19:02, gangadhara reddy chavva <
> meetgangadhara@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> HI All,
>
>
>
> i have one question on EVPN VPWS BDF forwarding behavior at MH site.
>
> when PE is selected as BDF, it will communicate the EAD EVI route with B
> bit set to remote PE. so remote PE will install the FRR route with primary
> path towards DF PE and secondary path towards BDF.
>
> when ever primary path get disconnected it will switch the path to
> secondary path quickly at remote PE. because of this data from the remote
> PE will reach to BDF very quickly, but if BDF is not programmed its path
> towards multi homed segment then traffic will be get dropped until control
> plane convergence and it will be elected as DF.
>
>
>
> for faster convergence if we can install the route such that BDF can allow
> the traffic from remote PE towards to multi homed segment, we can forward
> the traffic received from the remote PE.
>
>
>
> at the same time we shouldn't allow the traffic from multi homed site this
> leads to duplicate traffic on the remote PE. to achieve this we should not
> program the path from multi home site towards remote PE until this PE
> elected as DF for that VPWS instance.
>
>
>
> can you please let me know if there are any problems with this kind of
> approach..
>
>
>
> <image.png>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Gangadhar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bess&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=dw_cbEJEFGb2ttG_aLztLllgQ6WbTf5f6YdWdNY3Sgo&s=VYEDWxQx9AA9mJMDxJ8_BoKV0xANI0ORk2zfcb3cfF4&e=>
>
>