Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree
"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com> Thu, 12 May 2016 05:30 UTC
Return-Path: <sajassi@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 DD79912D820 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2016 22:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-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
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 q7UJurm5Fcut for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2016 22:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 451EE12D13A for <bess@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2016 22:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15922; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1463031012; x=1464240612; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=yhjzohD6C9tfRXRVqubzKTceDpx8238pVTUv6eLXCLg=; b=YWKku+P5xxjEQkFu9XlUV7yoTG2A8SKtcXQPWKsqdix8eUN7GZqZ+1ZP DnkkYOLgCjHszqqNAqvds5FrrDy64qktM/Q1fTl1nm2cbjw3Lg+dmvfKy Wx6f4TrSrBY7yTfpSfWhYiSHN5dc8KEd98vRcc59mFogEX+GFRK4g/c2V U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D3AQA4FDRX/4gNJK1egzhVfQa5SAENgXYXC4VyAhyBFzgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEIBAQEEAQEBGgYROQEXBAIBCBEEAQEBAgIjAwICAiULFAEICAIEARIUiBsOqgmRAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAREEfIhtgQOEEREBHBcVglSCWQWYJwGFfYgggWmET4MqhTePQAEeAQFCg2tuhnw2fwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,609,1454976000"; d="scan'208";a="103449196"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 May 2016 05:30:10 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (xch-rtp-005.cisco.com [64.101.220.145]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4C5UAdS005805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 12 May 2016 05:30:10 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 12 May 2016 01:30:09 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 12 May 2016 01:30:09 -0400
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: "thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree
Thread-Index: AQHRUpaME/U9KT8MU0ut9l7k3idEc58OWnfAgAhLYwCAAYwoAIBC0CQAgBXcMACARGjgAA==
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 05:30:09 +0000
Message-ID: <D3596260.198C98%sajassi@cisco.com>
References: <569DF8F7.2000703@orange.com> <BLUPR0501MB17159341A47F02A3C3DAEE2FD4DA0@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D2D408B5.1787CA%sajassi@cisco.com> <BLUPR0501MB17158A5216A36D1FD235F5FFD4DE0@BLUPR0501MB1715.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D30D9ADD.18AF48%sajassi@cisco.com> <13131_1459244945_56FA4F91_13131_9249_1_56FA4F90.300@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <13131_1459244945_56FA4F91_13131_9249_1_56FA4F90.300@orange.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.2.160219
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.19.76.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0A14E8C6950EDC47AFF797F50FDD6090@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/TFj1lENuN0l9RPjN5LvocGSptY8>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 12 May 2016 05:30:15 -0000
Hi Thomas, I just made the final edits to evpn-etree draft and published it as rev05. Regards, Ali On 3/29/16, 2:49 AM, "thomas.morin@orange.com" <thomas.morin@orange.com> wrote: >Hi everyone, > >This WG Last Call is now closed and the document will move to the next >steps toward publication. > >The modification mentioned below will be incorporated in next release. > >Best, > >-Thomas > > > >2016-03-15, Ali Sajassi (sajassi): >> >> Jeffrey, >> >> >> >> On 2/1/16, 2:41 PM, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net> >>wrote: >> >>> Ali, >>> >>> One more question about PBB-EVPN. >>> >>> For the regular EVPN, section 3.3.2 talks about a situation where the >>> only traffic is BUM. There is no need for mac learning in that >>>situation. >>> >>> For PBB-EVPN, I assume this is also possible. With this, there is no >>>need >>> to advertise per-ES B-mac addresses - a single pair of global root/leaf >>> B-mac addresses are enough. >>> >>> Perhaps this can be mentioned for parity/completeness. Of course, this >>>is >>> not a big deal and either way it's fine - but I do want to ask to >>>confirm >>> my understanding. >> >> We’ll do. >> >> Cheers, >> Ali >> >>> >>> Jeffrey >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com] >>>> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:04 AM >>>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>; EXT - >>>> thomas.morin@orange.com <thomas.morin@orange.com>; BESS >>>><bess@ietf.org>; >>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree@tools.ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree >>>> >>>> Hi Jeffrey, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the review. Your comments helps tighten the draft some >>>>more. >>>> I >>>> have updated the draft and will publish it next (rev04). Majority of >>>>the >>>> comments were editorial in nature for better clarifications. Since the >>>> existing draft (rev03) reflects the consensus regarding our several >>>> rounds >>>> of discussions where we have taken care of the technical items, it is >>>> consistent with our expectation of not seeing any major issue during >>>>the >>>> LC. Please refer to my replies in line. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Ali >>>> >>>> >>>> On 1/27/16, 5:26 PM, "BESS on behalf of Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" >>>> <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of zzhang@juniper.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I was involved in relevant discussions, and have reviewed once more >>>>>for >>>>> this LC. >>>>> >>>>> I support the publication, but with the following questions/comments. >>>>> >>>>> 2.1 Scenario 1: Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE >>>>> >>>>> ... If the number of EVIs is very large >>>>> (e.g., more than 32K or 64K), then RT type 0 as defined in >>>>>[RFC4360] >>>>> SHOULD be used; otherwise, RT type 2 is sufficient. >>>>> >>>>> RFC 7153 should be referenced for "Type 2". >>>> >>>> >>>> Done. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, why is 32K mentioned? I can understand the 64k part. >>>> >>>> Removed 32K since the example is clear enough with 64K >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ... the MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST be tagged with an >>>>> indication of whether they originated from a Leaf AC or not. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps change the last line to "indication if they originated from a >>>>> Leaf AC"? Packets from a root AC are not tagged with a leaf >>>>>indication. >>>> >>>> OK. Better yet. It should say ³indication when they originated from a >>>> leaf >>>> AC². >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Other mechanisms for identifying whether an egress AC is a root or >>>>> leaf is beyond the scope of this document. >>>>> >>>>> Should "egress" be "ingress" in the above paragraph? Or simply >>>>>removed? >>>> >>>> Nice catch! It is ³ingress². It is now corrected. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ... This Leaf MPLS label is advertised to other PE devices, >>>>> using a new EVPN Extended Community called E-TREE Extended >>>>>Community >>>>> (section 5.1) along with an Ethernet A-D per ES route with ESI of >>>>> zero and a set of Route Targets (RTs) corresponding to all the >>>>>leaf >>>>> ACs on the PE. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps change the last sentence to "... corresponding to all EVIs >>>>>that >>>>> have leaf sites on the PE." >>>> >>>> The second to last sentence of section 3.2.1 says the same thing. I >>>> changed this sentence and removed the 2nd to last sentence. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3.2.3 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a leaf AC >>>>> >>>>> In this scenario, it is assumed that a multi-homed Ethernet >>>>>Segment >>>>> (ES) can have a mixed of both leaf and root ACs with each AC >>>>> designating a subnet (e.g., a VLAN). >>>>> >>>>> I understand that different VLANs on the same ES could be roots or >>>>> leaves. I suppose it's more important to say that for the same vlan, >>>>> different PEs on the same ES must have the same root/leaf >>>>>designation. >>>> >>>> That¹s given. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the first sentence could be reworded as the following to >>>> capture >>>>> the above point: >>>>> >>>>> While different ACs (VLANs) on the same ES could have different >>>>> root/leaf designation (some being roots and some being leaves), >>>>> the same VLAN does have the same root/leaf designation on all >>>>> PEs on the same ES. >>>> >>>> That¹s fine. It makes it more clear. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> For the following: >>>>> >>>>> ... the PEs with Leaf sites perform MAC learning in the >>>>> data-path over their Ethernet Segments, and advertise reachability >>>> in >>>>> EVPN MAC Advertisement routes which are imported only by PEs with >>>>>at >>>>> least one Root site in the EVI. A PE with only Leaf sites will not >>>>> import these routes. PEs with Root and/or Leaf sites may use the >>>>> Ethernet A-D routes for aliasing (in the case of multi-homed >>>>> segments) and for mass MAC withdrawal per [RFC 7432]. >>>>> >>>>> The above seems to contradict with the recommendation in Section 2.2. >>>> If >>>>> the context is the scenario described in section 2.1 then that's >>>>>fine, >>>>> but the text does not have a clear context. >>>> >>>> Agreed. Updated the section to indicate the context is section 2.1. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3.3.2 E-Tree without MAC Learning >>>>> >>>>> The PEs implementing an E-Tree service need not perform MAC >>>>>learning >>>>> when the traffic flows between Root and Leaf sites are multicast >>>>>or >>>>> broadcast. >>>>> >>>>> I suppose an "only" word should be added at the end of the above >>>> sentence. >>>> >>>> Agreed. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The fields of the IMET route are populated per the procedures >>>> defined >>>>> in [RFC7432], and the route import rules are as described in >>>> previous >>>>> sections. >>>>> >>>>> The route import rules described in previous sections are for MAC >>>> routes, >>>>> not IMET routes. Additionally, those rules may not be recommended, so >>>>> might as well delete the last sentence. >>>> >>>> Changed the last sentence to ³Š, and the multicast tunnel setup >>>>criteria >>>> are as described in the previous section.² >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Section 3.3.1 talks about BUM procedures. That is not specific to >>>>>3.3.1 >>>>> though. Perhaps extract that out to a separate section, and remove >>>>>the >>>>> BUM text from 3.3.2 as well. >>>> >>>> I think it is OK. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The E-TREE Extended Community is encoded as an 8-octet value as >>>>> follows: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 0 1 2 3 >>>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>>>>0 1 >>>>> >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>>> | Type=0x06 | Sub-Type=0x04 | Flags(1 Octet)| >>>> | >>>>> >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>>> | Reserved=0 | Leaf Label >>>> | >>>>> >>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>>> >>>>> I assume the octect after the flags octet is also reserved=0. Better >>>> mark >>>>> it as "Reserved=0". >>>> >>>> Agreed. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> When it is used with Ethernet A-D per ES route, the leaf flag SHOULD >>>>>be >>>>> set to 0 but ignored by the receiving routers. Therefore, why not set >>>> it >>>>> to 1 to be consistent the MAC/IP route case? >>>> >>>> Because the flag is used for known unicast traffic and Leaf label for >>>> BUM >>>> traffic. We don¹t want to mix the two. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Ali >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> Jeffrey >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:51 AM >>>>>> To: BESS <bess@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree@tools.ietf.org >>>>>> Subject: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Working Group, >>>>>> >>>>>> This email starts a Working Group Last Call on >>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree [1] which is considered mature and ready >>>> for >>>>>> a final working group review. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent version >>>> yet >>>>>> (-03), and send your comments to the list, no later than *February >>>> the >>>>>> 2nd* (2016-02-02). >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not only a call for comments on the document, but also a >>>>>>call >>>> of >>>>>> support for its publication. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that >>>>>> applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree, to ensure that IPR has been >>>>>> disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, >>>> 3669 >>>>>> and 5378 for more details). >>>>>> >>>>>> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of >>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree please respond to this email and indicate >>>>>> whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thomas/Martin >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> BESS mailing list >>>>>> BESS@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> BESS mailing list >>>>> BESS@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >>> >> > > >__________________________________________________________________________ >_______________________________________________ > >Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez >recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme >ou falsifie. Merci. > >This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >information that may be protected by law; >they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >delete this message and its attachments. >As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have >been modified, changed or falsified. >Thank you. >
- [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree Thomas Morin
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… HENDERICKX, Wim (Wim)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… John E Drake
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… RABADAN, Jorge (Jorge)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Luay
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Wen Lin
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… UTTARO, JAMES
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Samer Salam (ssalam)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Poorna Pushkala B
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Satya Mohanty (satyamoh)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Aldrin Isaac
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Sami Boutros
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… thomas.morin
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Thomas Morin
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… John E Drake
- Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-e… Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)