IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bess] EVPN FECs in LSP Ping

"Parag Jain (paragj)" <paragj@cisco.com> Sun, 16 September 2018 23:09 UTC

Return-Path: <paragj@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 EA5AA130DD0; Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, 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 eZAiyCuq0Vey; Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E150F126BED; Sun, 16 Sep 2018 16:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3634; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1537139363; x=1538348963; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=kGtBKldz91oqFBrODkJW0dXu8khrEOiurhx3x4WeECA=; b=FExXTAwNLfZLiG9qyVhKoObzg3LcD277fV+1PnKpNInb/5nHWB0ypvpP DjlxtZeflg87DSIzPak/eO24gfrDt8sz052c8dczqDiv61Jfs9So05gX4 ks1E6NF4eexE03GlGV6Tl3FLBY74/RY576WiVgJwL8tIRghu3qKHUZl3I M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CgAABJ4p5b/4kNJK1YAxkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEHAQEBAQGBUIIIZX8oCoNoiBWMKIFoJYM9hSGNbRSBZgsYC4RJAheDRyE0GAEDAQECAQECbRwMhTgBAQEBAgEBASEROQELDgICAQgOCgICJgICAhQLBgsVEAEBBAENBYMhAYFpAw0ID6NqgS6HJA2CSgUFgQaJYheBQT+BEicME4JMglZFAQEDAYElBQESAR8XChkNgjoxgiYCkzaIYiwJAoY7gwODPoMXF48Ni11rh2ACERSBJR04ZHFwFTsqAYJBixWFPm8ximOBH4EeAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,383,1531785600"; d="scan'208";a="449907172"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Sep 2018 23:09:09 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w8GN99en032047 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 16 Sep 2018 23:09:09 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Sun, 16 Sep 2018 19:09:08 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Sun, 16 Sep 2018 19:09:08 -0400
From: "Parag Jain (paragj)" <paragj@cisco.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
CC: "draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk@ietf.org" <draft-salam-bess-evpn-oam-req-frmwk@ietf.org>, "Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com" <Michael.Gorokhovsky@ecitele.com>, "Ron.Sdayoor@ecitele.com" <Ron.Sdayoor@ecitele.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com" <Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com>
Thread-Topic: [bess] EVPN FECs in LSP Ping
Thread-Index: AdRF6Jo59jnHnDAASgOXd3gd5D/6UgIR5SCA///EKgA=
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 23:09:08 +0000
Message-ID: <631030AA-0228-4549-AEE0-BECC03865ECA@cisco.com>
References: <DB5PR0301MB1909275472D15F5A67E9E35B9D010@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAF4+nEHHNjvKdRYhXV6tVTPi=5vAYq5=ozuSeXK6ER5vYFJMSg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEHHNjvKdRYhXV6tVTPi=5vAYq5=ozuSeXK6ER5vYFJMSg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1a.0.160910
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.86.244.22]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <D0E5BFBD8C4DD84593869B5E2DFCF0E8@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.143, xch-rtp-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/WhJuX7Yt7qFEYuyUEvmDLs6h_CU>
Subject: Re: [bess] EVPN FECs in LSP Ping
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: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 23:09:26 -0000

Hi Sasha

There is an accompanying LSP ping draft for evpn:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jain-bess-evpn-lsp-ping/

Thanks
Parag


On 2018-09-16, 6:43 PM, "BESS on behalf of Donald Eastlake" <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:

    Hi Sasha,
    
    Thanks for your questions. See below.
    
    On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:58 AM Alexander Vainshtein
    <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> wrote:
    >
    > Dear authors of the EVPN OAM requirements and Framework draft,
    >
    > I have looked up the draft, and it looks to me as a good starting
    > point for work on EVPN OAM.
    
    Thanks.
    
    > I would like to clarify two points with regard to the draft:
    >
    > 1.  In order to pass unicast EAOM frames (LBM/LBR and LTR), the
    > local MAC-VRF must learn the MAC address of the customer MEP and
    > advertise it to remote PEs as a MAC/IP Advertisement route. Should
    > this be considered as a special case of learning from the control
    > plane (in addition to ARP/NDP/DHCP/DHCPv6 that are mentioned in RFC
    > 7432)?
    
    Yes, the MAC address of the customer MEP needs to be learned but
    Section 9.1 of RFC 7432 includes the following text, which seems
    adequate to me:
    
       The PEs in a particular EVPN instance MUST support local data-plane
       learning using standard IEEE Ethernet learning procedures.
    
    > 2. The draft seems to propose extension of LSP Ping to test/verify
    > connectivity to the FECs advertised as NRLI of EVPN routes. I have
    > checked the IANA Registry, and no values for these FECs have been
    > allocated yet.  Do you plan any specific work on this?
    
    LSP Ping is one mechanism indirectly referenced in Section 2.4 of the
    draft via the reference to RFC 6425 but there are others.
    
    Since OAM messages need to follow the same path as data, as far as
    practical, it seem to me there should not be any FECs allocated for
    OAM beyond those already needed for data. Probably wording in the
    draft related to FECs should be checked/adjusted.
    
    Thanks,
    Donald
    ===============================
     Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
     1424 Pro Shop Court, Davenport, FL 33896 USA
     d3e3e3@gmail.com
    
    
    > Regards,
    > Sasha
    >
    > Office: +972-39266302
    > Cell:   +972-549266302
    > Email:  Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com
    
    _______________________________________________
    BESS mailing list
    BESS@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email