Re: [bess] Joel Jaeggli's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

On 2/28/16, 5:37 PM, "Joel Jaeggli" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Joel:

Hi!  How are you?

...
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>DISCUSS:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>After further discussion related to the ops dir review, I'm going to have
>to echo Benoit and the Opsdir reviewers concern.

I have to say that, as Eric, I am at a loss as to what specifically you
want to see in the document.  Please see my comments below related to the
OpsDir review text.


>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Sue Hares performed the opsdir review. benoit holds the discuss for the
>points she raised.
>
>Status: Not ready,  three major concerns and two editorial nits:
>
>Major concerns:
>
>1)      Specification of the Extranet Source Extended Community and Extra
>Source extended Community

I think the authors took care of this already by making sure that 4.4
includes the text that Sue had proposed [1].

...
>2)      Why is there no Deployment considerations section?

This seems to be the sticking point.  What exactly are you looking for?

Please take a look at Sections 1.2. (Scope) and 1.3. (Clarification on Use
of Route Distinguishers) -- these are maybe not the best named sections,
but in them the authors lay out when this spec is useful: SSM and ASM
deployments (not Dense mode), calls out potential problems with BSR,
applicable to both PIM and BGP signaling, justified the use of a unique
VRF per RD.

Section 1.4. (Overview) gives some examples of potential deployments
("only some of its multicast C-sources be treated as extranet C-sources",
or "some of its extranet C-sources can transmit only to a certain set of
VPNs"), and it talks about the need for the SP to coordinate with the
customer during the provisioning process.

It seems to me that there's already a pretty good summary in those
sections, but they are not called "operational considerations"Š  What is
missing?  Do you want the above to be in a specific titled section, or
maybe there are other details you'd like to see -- if so, what are they?


A couple of days ago you raised a specific point [2]:

"...
there is eleborate discussion of the
requirement for one RD per VRF and then extranet seperation adds a twist
that.

   However, when Extranet Separation is used, some of
   the local-RD routes exported from the VRF will contain the extranet
   RD.  Details concerning the exported routes that contain the extranet
   RD can be found in Sections 4.1 and 7.3.
"

It sounds like you may want more clarity/details on parts of that.  What?



...
>3)      Is security section really a security section? It seems more like
>³do this policy² or this will fail.  It should get a stronger review from
>the security directorate

I am in fact not able to find a SecDir review.  However, the SEC AD did
put a DISCUSS on this document [3] and later cleared it [4] based on added
text.

Are there specific security concerns?

Thanks!

Alvaro.



[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/h3H9joH90g2B1XplYi_H9QJaf6k
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/Gg4e8CvN5TpvhqmvUOCB4vRvlug
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/DBdwMh2Z3WE80NJxhA5qDsmlQwI
[4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/sjxLrpyGCCarO86xd5n617Q3fIk