Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with Ingress Replication

Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange.com> Thu, 14 December 2017 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.morin@orange.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 C99031250B8 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.215
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.215 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT=1.449, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 eXIFM7XzFTc8 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.orange.com (p-mail2.rd.orange.com [161.106.1.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE80124205 for <bess@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 05:39:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id ABFBFE30098; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:39:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.194.32.11]) by p-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92038E30097; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:39:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from l-fipglop (10.193.71.131) by FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (10.194.32.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.361.1; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:39:38 +0100
Message-ID: <1513258777.30252.11.camel@orange.com>
From: Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange.com>
To: Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it>, bess@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:39:37 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CAO367rVvmv4kyFbS8C=WEyZpXZZQUgLsFX1gscy49UNU2_pJvQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO367rVvmv4kyFbS8C=WEyZpXZZQUgLsFX1gscy49UNU2_pJvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Orange S.A.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.3-1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/WUYJkWs2XWJ62XjNMyupjWZxE_Q>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with Ingress Replication
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 14 Dec 2017 13:39:41 -0000

Hi Marco,

Marco Marzetti, 2017-12-14 12:25:
> I am writing this email asking you to clarify what's the suggested
> behavior when PMSI Tunnel Type is set to "Ingress Replication" (type
> 6) as draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 only suggests what to do with
> multicast tunnel trees.
>
> I think the originating PE should conform with RFC6514 and RFC7432
> (from which you've taken inspiration) and always (RFC2119 MUST)
> attach PMSI Tunnel attribute with the Tunnel Type set to Ingress
> Replication and Tunnel Identifier set to a routable address of the PE
> itself (more specifically NVE's IP address).
> 
> Is that correct?
> In that case i suggest to add the following line at the end of
> Section 9.
> """
> For Ingress Replication the PE should follow what's stated in RFC6514
> Section 5 .
> """

The text of section 9 lists "Ingress Replication" in the list of tunnel
types that can be used. My understanding is that, in the absence of
anything being specifically said for Ingress Replication, an
implementation should follow what is said in RFC7432 and RFC6514. (What
other specs could it follow to implement this supported type ? RFC7432
and RFC6514 are more than an inspiration here, these are specs that the
document refers to explicitly)

So I'm not sure that it is useful or needed to add text.

Can you perhaps expand on why the current text would possibly be
ambiguous, misleading or incomplete...?

-Thomas