IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bess] A question on CE behavior on traffic forwarding to EVPN multihomed PEs in single-active mode

"Mrinmoy Ghosh (mrghosh)" <mrghosh@cisco.com> Wed, 13 February 2019 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <mrghosh@cisco.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 AD34012D4E9 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 23:51:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=F9XvNdTt; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=i2bSlky8
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 n4pINwGigut0 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 23:51:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E521E12D4E6 for <bess@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 23:51:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17733; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1550044290; x=1551253890; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=lczdCYpKxzfkxLEUuMMnJZrkntlx5ua1oFhGxYs+Fz0=; b=F9XvNdTtIsZXU6O54JPgeOCw8xUu/9MMEBxrvb+YzmgkQSBbWl/oyawK 91FT9tZABFGzF1p3Xfsv0eRliGodXQzqxxvCVBbCZ/XaZjlBIOcAYI527 OGuNGWhNCHEyIDW/Jk+X3OnoSgufKIz6tPuoSRhqmi0T/VM+lIQ1N5q+j c=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:zGgEQRXxHg9KSQNNGSb2S31Ghh/V8LGuZFwc94YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSA92J8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTFdE7KdehAk8GIiAAEz/IuTtank/BstCU0Rl13q6KkNSXs35Yg6arw==
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAAALy2Nc/5pdJa1jGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgQ0jUANndAQLJ4dMA4RQiyeCV5gTgSQDVAsBASyEQAKDTCI0CQ0BAwEBAgEBAm0cDIVKAQEBAQMtEwEBNwEPAgEIEQQBAS8yHQgBAQQBDQUIgx2BHUwDFQGeVQKKFIIggngBAQWFBBiCCwiMQheBQD+BEUaCTIUDgziCJooFhh2GYowjCQKSapJoijWRZgIEAgQFAg0BAQWBRjiBVnAVgyeCHDaDOIpTcoEojjsBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,365,1544486400"; d="scan'208,217";a="507461055"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Feb 2019 07:51:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x1D7pSPr025670 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:51:28 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 01:51:27 -0600
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 01:51:26 -0600
Received: from NAM05-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 01:51:26 -0600
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=rE8+GVXU/3+WyqrmxbxSz9QUtGC0sh5XYIUJQnRlVRg=; b=i2bSlky8lMEDOipak0ezgVvQSbwtqn8svcfmprQEp8SjW6TBXfodsjfrikDsTOREGPvgDaOjgqS/GAS388bUH2ONCIsjtOsECAvo/p1MH5wNnytZdfwSNksvEl1b/a4mfXOF8yUa0iX53dJdqkqVhXtJkx6mSE51At2QUmIJxYk=
Received: from MWHPR11MB1823.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.53.138) by MWHPR11MB0079.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.164.204.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1622.16; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:51:24 +0000
Received: from MWHPR11MB1823.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e475:3916:73a8:acb0]) by MWHPR11MB1823.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e475:3916:73a8:acb0%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1601.023; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:51:24 +0000
From: "Mrinmoy Ghosh (mrghosh)" <mrghosh@cisco.com>
To: Jaikumar Somasundaram <jaikumar.somasundaram@ericsson.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
CC: Pradeep Ramakrishnan <pradeep.ramakrishnan@ericsson.com>, Chalapathi Andhe <chalapathi.andhe@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: A question on CE behavior on traffic forwarding to EVPN multihomed PEs in single-active mode
Thread-Index: AdTDYiWVmf+fIaGER8akln0m882EcgADhkfQ
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:51:23 +0000
Message-ID: <MWHPR11MB18239E0D471F6555DC06F997A4660@MWHPR11MB1823.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <VI1PR07MB4302B575C15625E997DBA74386660@VI1PR07MB4302.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB4302B575C15625E997DBA74386660@VI1PR07MB4302.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c8:1001::6c4]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0c2a4006-3641-4a50-79ef-08d691880d19
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600110)(711020)(4605077)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:MWHPR11MB0079;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR11MB0079:
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; MWHPR11MB0079; 23: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
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR11MB0079DF4E031BE15E69DF3666A4660@MWHPR11MB0079.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 094700CA91
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(366004)(346002)(136003)(53754006)(189003)(199004)(316002)(446003)(110136005)(54906003)(99286004)(229853002)(53936002)(54896002)(6306002)(76176011)(6246003)(790700001)(6116002)(33656002)(55016002)(9686003)(7696005)(6436002)(46003)(74316002)(14454004)(7736002)(2501003)(68736007)(9326002)(8936002)(71190400001)(97736004)(81166006)(71200400001)(81156014)(476003)(11346002)(106356001)(4326008)(8676002)(486006)(2906002)(6506007)(478600001)(102836004)(186003)(25786009)(53546011)(6346003)(105586002)(86362001)(256004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR11MB0079; H:MWHPR11MB1823.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=mrghosh@cisco.com;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: /iA68oMbQ8sBUDzdmjkim6b4MK2wRCEJuAIj1BL0exByrQ8XMZ6HJqm7NX5SIyqvouFA/rrH71BXAc9IHKsbLNxwbmN5gjz3ykZad0JxDR54LxHVtQ/U6/t55d38eNcnQyahlScs8SWnYM7QcHZ2kNO5Bohzn9RehjLeXeGYTiEGJnbt7lSFUiwkj89f5gh4qLaqkXiq6K7M2ics9peX0Z1fOJPo49mU2yXH8dmpfZLgS8atZDkzXxxeT6o72S4ZFPQgld1gmsQd6czfveaSni88c17IaHLLoiSAxRH7ndPpYJpPYq3nRUQfihLVb4bPzGoRkUaCRKlOfrs63HiT39OWh+cPzQi75FKsM8yhcoen6Tlx8kn9LINEGBwM9SM9qkXeSaIXuQCO4Jzcn2wVYdR3OFj3z1wTslteV3p5WUk=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MWHPR11MB18239E0D471F6555DC06F997A4660MWHPR11MB1823namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0c2a4006-3641-4a50-79ef-08d691880d19
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Feb 2019 07:51:23.9185 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR11MB0079
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.18, xch-aln-008.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/OxVNf9VI9ca-T7JtxI0WJA9EcgQ>
Subject: Re: [bess] A question on CE behavior on traffic forwarding to EVPN multihomed PEs in single-active mode
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:51:34 -0000

Hi Jaikumar,

EVPN Single active heavily depends upon MAC Flush mechanism like MVRP or TCN Flush.

In your topology, initially CE1 would flood unknown ucast to both PE1 and PE2; PE1 being DF will send and receive traffic for that (ES, EVI), hence once the traffic  will be learned eventually from PE1.
However on switchover, Mac flush is sent to CE so that the forwarding table is flushed and the traffic is flooded to both PE until learned from the new DF.

Thanks,
Mrinmoy

From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jaikumar Somasundaram
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 10:11 PM
To: bess@ietf.org
Cc: Pradeep Ramakrishnan <pradeep.ramakrishnan@ericsson.com>; Chalapathi Andhe <chalapathi.andhe@ericsson.com>
Subject: [bess] A question on CE behavior on traffic forwarding to EVPN multihomed PEs in single-active mode

Hello All,

In EVPN MH with Single-Active scenario, could you help us to clarify the below query?

                     --------------
                     |            |
               PORT1 |  DEVICE1   |PORT3
       --------------|     PE1    |-------------
       |      1/5    |  2.2.2.2   | 1/4         |
       |             |            |             |
       |             --------------             |
       |PORT1              |PORT2               |PORT2
--------------            |             +------------+            --------------
 |            |            |             |            |            |            |
 | DEVICE4    |            |             |            |PORT1       | DEVICE4    |
 | (CE1)      |            |             |   DEVICE3  |------------| (CE2)      |
 | Multi-home |            |             |     PE     |       PORT3| Single home|
 |            |            |             |   4.4.4.4  |            |            |
--------------            |             +------------+            --------------
       |PORT2              |1/1                |PORT3
       |                   |PORT2              | 1/6
       |             --------------            |
       |             |            |            |
       |       PORT1 |  DEVICE2   |            |
       --------------|    PE2     |-------------
                1/4  |  3.3.3.3   |PORT3
                     |            |1/4
                     --------------

Let's say CE1 is connected to PE1 and PE2 (single-active case)
and PE1 is the DF for VLAN 10 and has the active link,
but CE1 sends unknown unicast traffic on the link to PE2 (standby link),
wouldn't the traffic be dropped because its non-DF ?

or

How does CE ensure traffic is always forwarded on the active link
(as standby link will drop the traffic) ?

Thanks & Regards
Jaikumar S

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email