Re: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'

Hi John,

2015-11-12, John E Drake:
>
> Why do you think it should be documented in Eric's draft rather than in the EVPN Overlay draft?

The issue applies beyond the context of E-VPN overlay specs, and exist 
in any context where different kinds of MPLS(/x) encaps can be mixed 
(E-VPN non-overlay, IP VPNs), which is addressed by Eric's draft.

Best,

-Thomas

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> thomas.morin@orange.com
>> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 3:39 AM
>> To: bess@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'
>>
>> HI John, Weiguo,
>>
>> John E Drake :
>>>
>>> It is needed in order to distinguish between an advertising node that
>>> only supports non-MPLS encapsulations and one that supports MPLS and
>>> non-MPLS encapsulations.  An advertising node that only supports MPLS
>>> encapsulation does not need to advertise anything.
>>>
>>
>> By the way, I suggested this to be documented in draft-rosen-idr-tunnel-
>> encaps [1].
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -Thomas
>>
>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg14732.html
>>
>>
>>> *From:*Haoweiguo [mailto:haoweiguo@huawei.com]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:08 AM
>>> *To:* Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge); sajassi@cisco.com; John E Drake
>>> *Cc:* bess@ietf.org
>>> *Subject:* RE: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'
>>>
>>> Jorge,
>>>
>>> Understood, many thanks. Now that the default tunnel encapsulation is
>>> MPLS encapsulation, the tunnel type 10 seems to be unneccessary. So is
>>> the introduction of tunnel type 10 just for further removing
>>> ambiguity? If i don't use the tunnel type 10 in MPLS based EVPN
>>> implementation(RFC 7432), it will also never incur any issue. Am i right?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> weiguo
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>>
>>> *From:*BESS [bess-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Rabadan, Jorge
>>> (Jorge) [jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:47
>>> *To:* Haoweiguo; sajassi@cisco.com <mailto:sajassi@cisco.com>;
>>> jdrake@juniper.net <mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>
>>> *Cc:* bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'
>>>
>>> Weiguo,
>>>
>>> Well, if an RFC7432 implementation does not use the RFC5512 ext
>>> community, the following sentence in the evan-overlay draft should
>>> help interoperability. I personally don’t see any issues.
>>>
>>> If the BGP Encapsulation extended community is not present, then the
>>>     default MPLS encapsulation or a statically configured encapsulation
>>>     is assumed.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Jorge
>>>
>>> *From: *Haoweiguo <haoweiguo@huawei.com
>> <mailto:haoweiguo@huawei.com>>
>>> *Date: *Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 7:03 PM
>>> *To: *Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com
>>> <mailto:jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com>>, "sajassi@cisco.com
>>> <mailto:sajassi@cisco.com>" <sajassi@cisco.com
>>> <mailto:sajassi@cisco.com>>, "jdrake@juniper.net
>>> <mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>" <jdrake@juniper.net
>>> <mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>>
>>> *Cc: *"bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org
>>> <mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
>>> *Subject: *RE: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'
>>>
>>>      Jorge,
>>>
>>>      Thanks for your explanations. However, i still can't understand,
>>>      i'm sorry.
>>>
>>>      RFC 5512 only defines IP tunnel type and encapsulation attribute,
>>>      like L2TPv3,GRE and IP in IP.  For RFC 5512, MPLS tunnel doesn't
>>>      need to be defined specifically, it is default case. In RFC 7432,
>>>      the tunnel type 10 also hasn't been defined. Later, when the EVPN
>>>      for overlay network solution was proposed, the tunnel type 10 was
>>>      introduced to differentiate MPLS tunnel and VXLAN/NVGRE/MPLS Over
>>>      GRE tunnel, because same route type 1,2,3,4 and 5 are used in both
>>>      RFC 7432 and the draft 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'. We need
>>>      the tunnel type to clearly notify peer EVPN PE which
>>>      tunnel(including MPLS tunnel type) should be used.  So it
>>>      introduced updates on RFC 7432 and will incur some interoperbility
>>>      issue for RFC 7432. Am i right?
>>>
>>>      Thanks,
>>>
>>>      weiguo
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>>
>>>      *From:*BESS [bess-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org>]
>>>      on behalf of Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)
>>>      [jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com
>>>      <mailto:jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com>]
>>>      *Sent:* Wednesday, November 11, 2015 0:01
>>>      *To:* Haoweiguo; sajassi@cisco.com <mailto:sajassi@cisco.com>;
>>>      jdrake@juniper.net <mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>
>>>      *Cc:* bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
>>>      *Subject:* Re: [bess] One question about
>>>      'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'
>>>
>>>      Weiguo,
>>>
>>>      There are already implementations using value 10 in the RFC5512
>>>      BGP encap ext community.
>>>
>>>      That is the value you would have in RFC7432 compliant networks
>>>      where you can also have overlay tunnels. Value 10 would indicate
>>>      to the ingress PE that the route needs an MPLS tunnel to be resolved.
>>>
>>>      Thx
>>>
>>>      Jorge
>>>
>>>      *From: *BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org
>>>      <mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Haoweiguo
>>>      <haoweiguo@huawei.com <mailto:haoweiguo@huawei.com>>
>>>      *Date: *Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 1:05 AM
>>>      *To: *"sajassi@cisco.com <mailto:sajassi@cisco.com>"
>>>      <sajassi@cisco.com <mailto:sajassi@cisco.com>>,
>>>      "jdrake@juniper.net <mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>"
>>>      <jdrake@juniper.net <mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>>
>>>      *Cc: *"bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org
>>>      <mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
>>>      *Subject: *[bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'
>>>
>>>          Hi Ali & John,
>>>
>>>          The draft of 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02' describes how
>>>          EVPN can be used for Overlay network, the overlay network
>>>          includes VXLAN, NVGRE and MPLS Over GRE.
>>>
>>>          In section 13 IANA considerations, several overlay tunnel
>>>          types are requested as follows:
>>>
>>>          8 VXLAN Encapsulation
>>>          9    NVGRE Encapsulation
>>>          10   MPLS Encapsulation   (?)
>>>          11   MPLS in GRE Encapsulation
>>>          12   VXLAN GPE Encapsulation
>>>
>>>          IMO, 8,9,11 and 12 are all overlay encapsulations, 10 is an
>>>          exception. Would you like to explain what's the purpose of
>>>          tunnel type 10?
>>>
>>>          Thanks,
>>>
>>>          weiguo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> BESS mailing list
>>> BESS@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>
>>