Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question
Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 24 April 2021 18:57 UTC
Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.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 132AA3A1AEE for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 11:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.985
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 IxLV0BfZVoG3 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 11:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42e.google.com (mail-pf1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED6DF3A1AE8 for <bess@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id a12so36266173pfc.7 for <bess@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=5DGBMyzjDVcVqiT/ncMcOujGe/6eyMCP9W8wnXfBHx0=; b=AWb3f8fQbMv0fo4y8J7pEQmtpGCb5phBTi/a/xhjDNge6E3LvL+QEiGYG5i8QmR6eW SLdtHYJnErEh+dMEQu2KSE7a4YRSQGrTW1nOwlyNzyVjHgQX25s+hHrm5LQR9rfywn5E j21ER/MBAbCm8xroSmZ2MfQf50e2rmjWyZEtLruc+YrWB9d0WHTIGCbrSMUQH6ZkCnK7 z15r136Id4XnitdeDwagnJlwnCUkcgpyqvLV74BLZHddgKkbY1wGOvxEwRJ87HqbPtEV 1DGjBHpfejIov6FbQQgsd5kZFNi8vdm5kTYeNGKRigVYY5p4iLh5o+eyZqVMFY0s3yAN JyXg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=5DGBMyzjDVcVqiT/ncMcOujGe/6eyMCP9W8wnXfBHx0=; b=Kn8fH6xq05aqJA4QluxnXfUKTtUlC1fT6Ko1WkF1eiB+KnJhI9dtXHrg3CJxE9k7tl 21Lluw2XTpKpERjSCpV/gL5j3bSpvZbwN3eMhMOqa/2HKsFczRH4VabAzHUvdb6o/ppH 6FY59c+xVezJea7OlJbDS36SB0exhR2p8d6OVULPLM5PZOb7M8PeIG2QEfbOCXkLAKXw VyJcIl02VhKlbpCsK0tFgmIvNOpm9xLmq5osy9O8RzANrNsbDWYit3klnFpj6NxdzDAK 6VLu8MaaXom6adNMgdNwBJCfKtgv3ApF9vR7/GOKyidI1tR+wHXvI47mXhTuONKYSTOu o5Ig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53203Pedsp5nwRrQD439zwov41J+lsMWQ2hnuCmSA1I2AdN0qifh pXVhVPVTn4PogrGrYXvm57g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzJ/oBiAOxUVZNLrMqpR16vWUw918nIrVBtW24LQGtJ+Z5ZEI2ibyDSug6lGJ6XWSqKI0cAGg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:79c4:: with SMTP id u187mr9521892pgc.124.1619290665850; Sat, 24 Apr 2021 11:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q78sm8123689pfc.18.2021.04.24.11.57.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 24 Apr 2021 11:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-3F603E35-6EBC-49A2-ADB1-BF5B0B40C146"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 11:57:43 -0700
Message-Id: <A58CC77D-3A77-4ACF-BD86-00C34627CC10@gmail.com>
References: <CABNhwV2z==qQziMKLVFFucDfSMPWiT17dQWVmn4xw07DbmnuSg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV2z==qQziMKLVFFucDfSMPWiT17dQWVmn4xw07DbmnuSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18D70)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/Nj2IZn1k-9BX3I80J_b73M21FWw>
Subject: Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question
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: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 18:57:52 -0000
Gyan, Normative references have to be at least at the same level of maturity as the document referring. Just common sense. While it often creates rather complex dependencies, it is a healthy precaution. Regards, Jeff > On Apr 24, 2021, at 10:14, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > That’s fabulous news that everyone has implemented!! > > Unfortunate on the red tape with the turn around to RFC. > > Kind Regards > > Gyan > >> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 8:29 AM John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> wrote: >> Yes, and everyone has implemented it. Unfortunately, it had an inadvertent normative reference to the tunnel encapsulation attribute and hence has been in the RFC Editor queue for over three years. >> >> >> >> Yours Irrespectively, >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> Juniper Business Use Only >> From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> >> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 6:21 PM >> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi@cisco.com>; BESS <bess@ietf.org>; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>; John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com> >> Subject: Fwd: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question >> >> >> >> [External Email. Be cautious of content] >> >> >> >> >> >> Authors >> >> >> >> Do we know if this draft will progress to RFC? >> >> >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-10 >> >> >> >> >> >> This is a very useful draft for intra DC multi pod NVO3 solutions with multiple vendors. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Gyan >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com> >> Date: Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 3:07 AM >> Subject: Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question >> To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> >> CC: BESS <bess@ietf.org> >> >> >> >> Hi Gyan, >> >> >> >> If I may, note that: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay-10#section-4.6 >> >> >> >> Also provides vxlan segmentation, and while the description is based on DCI, you can perfectly use it for inter-pod connectivity. >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> Jorge >> >> >> >> From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> >> Date: Friday, April 24, 2020 at 5:21 AM >> To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> >> Cc: BESS <bess@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Jeff >> >> >> >> Yes - Cisco has a draft for multi site for use cases capability of inter pod or inter site segmented path between desperate POD fabrics intra DC or as DCI option inter DC without MPLS. The segmentation localizes BUM traffic and has border gateway DF election for BUM traffic that is segmented stitched between PODs as I mentioned similar to inter-as L3 vpn opt b. There is a extra load as you said on the BGW border gateway performing the network vtep dencap from leaf and then again encap towards the egress border gateway. Due to that extra load on the border gateway it’s not recommended to have spine function on BGW thus an extra layer for multi site to be scalable. Definitely requires proprietary asic and not merchant silicon or white box solution. The BUM traffic is much reduced as you stated from multi fabric connected super spine or single fabric spine that contains all leafs. That decoupling sounds like incongruent control and data plane with Mac only Type 2 routes which would result in more BUM traffic but it sounds like that maybe trade off of conversation learning only active flows versus entire data center wide Mac VRF being learned everywhere. I wonder if their is an option to have that real decoupling of EVPN control plane and vxlan data plane overlay that does not impact convergence but adds stability and only active flow Type 2 Mac learner across the fabric. >> >> >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sharma-multi-site-evpn/ >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Gyan >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:04 PM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Gyan, >> >> >> >> "Multi site” is not really an IETF terminology, this is a solution implement by NX-OS, there’s a draft though. Its main functionality is to localize VxLAN tunnels and provide segmented path vs end2end full mesh of VxLAN tunnels (participating in the same EVI). We are talking HER here. >> >> The feature is heavily HW dependent as it requires BUM re-encapsulation at the boundaries (leaf1->BGW1-BGW2->leaf2..n). So good luck seeing it soon on low end silicon. >> >> It doesn’t eliminate BUM traffic but significantly reduces the span of “broadcast domain” and reduces the need for large flood domains (modern HW gives you ~512 large flood groups, obviously depending on HW) >> >> >> >> Wrt your question about Mac conversation learning - this is an implementation issue, nothing in EVPN specifications precludes you of doing so, moreover in the implementation I was designing (in my previous life) we indeed decoupled data plane learning from control plane advertisement so control plane was aware of “Active” flows. Needless to say - this creates an additional layer of complexity and all kinds of funky states in the system ;-). >> >> >> >> Hope this helps >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jeff >> >> On Apr 23, 2020, 8:30 AM -0700, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>, wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Slight clarification with the arp traffic. What I meant was broadcast traffic translated into BUM traffic with the EVPN architecture is there any way to reduce the amount of BUM traffic with a data center design requirement with vlan anywhere sprawl with 1000s of type 2 Mac mobility routes being learned between all the leaf VTEPs. >> >> >> >> The elimination of broadcast is a tremendous gain and with broadcast suppression of multicast that does help but it would be nice to not have such massive Mac tables type 2 route churn chatter with a conversation learning where only active flows are are in the type 2 rib. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Gyan >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 6:47 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> In the description of the vxlan BGP evpn scenario has a typo on the multisite feature segmented LSP inter pod with the RT auto rewrite which is similar to MPLS inter-as option b not a. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Gyan >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 5:57 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> All >> >> >> >> Had a question related to vxlan BGP EVPN architecture specifications defined in BGP EVPN NVO3 overlay RFC 8365 and VXLAN data plane RFC 7348. >> >> >> >> In a Data Center environment where you have a multiple PODs individual fabrics per POD connected via a super spine extension using a Multi site feature doing auto rewrite of RTs to stitch the NVE tunnel between pods similar to inter-as option A. >> >> >> >> So in this scenario where you have vlan sprawl everywhere with L2 and L3 VNIs everywhere as if it were a a single L2 domain. The topology is a typical vxlan spine leaf topology where the L3 leafs are the TOR switch so very small physical L2 fault domain. So I was wondering if with the vxlan architecture if this feature below is possible or if their is a way to do so in the current specification. >> >> >> >> Cisco use to have a DC product called “fabric path” which was based on conversation learning. >> >> >> >> Is there any way with existing vxlan BGP evpn specification or maybe future enhancement to have a Mac conversation learning capability so that only the active mac’s that are part of a conversations flow are the mac that are flooded throughout the vxlan fabric. That would really help tremendously with arp storms so if new arp entries are generated locally on a leaf they are not flooded through the fabric unless their are active flows between leafs. >> >> >> >> Also is there a way to filter type 2 Mac mobility routes between leaf switches at the control plane level based on remote vtep or maybe other parameters.. That would also reduce arp storms BUM traffic. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Gyan >> >> -- >> >> Gyan Mishra >> >> Network Engineering & Technology >> >> Verizon >> >> Silver Spring, MD 20904 >> >> Phone: 301 502-1347 >> >> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Gyan Mishra >> >> Network Engineering & Technology >> >> Verizon >> >> Silver Spring, MD 20904 >> >> Phone: 301 502-1347 >> >> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Gyan Mishra >> >> Network Engineering & Technology >> >> Verizon >> >> Silver Spring, MD 20904 >> >> Phone: 301 502-1347 >> >> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BESS mailing list >> BESS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >> >> -- >> >> Gyan Mishra >> >> Network Engineering & Technology >> >> Verizon >> >> Silver Spring, MD 20904 >> >> Phone: 301 502-1347 >> >> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> <~WRD0000.jpg> >> >> Gyan Mishra >> Network Solutions Architect >> Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com >> M 301 502-1347 >> >> >> > -- > > > Gyan Mishra > Network Solutions Architect > Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com > M 301 502-1347 > >
- [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Krzysztof Grzegorz Szarkowicz
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Lukas Krattiger (lkrattig)
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- [bess] Fwd: VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question John E Drake
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra
- Re: [bess] VXLAN BGP EVPN Question Gyan Mishra