Re: [bess] [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps

"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com> Tue, 14 June 2016 05:33 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 01E2512D649 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 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=-1.426, 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 nCvKF9CCk-9c for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F80512D16C for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5508; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1465882380; x=1467091980; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=hAYtuX5/+nkb+GTrfW0LV0szCFmncpjikJnBs0dkGlQ=; b=FcsOWbmbWYnMPd5YTrm33Npo+RzRf7IX3oULEmLPIqQ0okRK3AlEU6Ho CAWyvKwzCGTgytVTw5iakDqZjqtGSjb6poYauBV7RmPiRNBOJTNpL2rcK kuZNfou8DHOR2UOvyDYpFmm0RO06bC51IVuNGccOpvP8oyn7yNUOhM1Mf M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D2AQC1lV9X/5hdJa1cgz5WfQa7L4F5FwuFdQKBMTgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEsBAQEEAQEBGlEGFQIBCBEEAQEBJwcnCxQJCAIEARIUiBwOunkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXBYp0hECFWwWYYwGGA4gkjyGPcQEeNoNubokJfwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,470,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="114779652"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Jun 2016 05:32:59 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5E5WwV0027641 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 14 Jun 2016 05:32:59 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 01:32:58 -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; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 01:32:58 -0400
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps
Thread-Index: AQHRpi++kmVRnOfCCEaLlUJwLCbjV5+pXciAgAAV74CAABx8AIAAAd6AgAD40oCAAAcLgIAAlB8AgAAObQCAE5+SgIAAQjEAgAj1lYCAAG49AIAVpCKAgAAP+YCACd7GgIAAcMcA
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 05:32:58 +0000
Message-ID: <D384E195.1AB83B%sajassi@cisco.com>
References: <5729F1C3.1030605@orange.com> <012C176C-A8D6-45AA-BA69-616C0ED7E41E@alcatel-lucent.com> <SN1PR0501MB1709E1AF8C398791421E2123C77B0@SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <420BA2D8D80A6727.2B2C290F-2299-40BB-B53B-CC36D2B5D826@mail.outlook.com> <1881_1462451514_572B3D3A_1881_7198_1_0vn90oitr7e881gh2sn8qm5f.1462451509961@email.android.com> <SN1PR0501MB17099CA0122BA8B4C3F99E7EC77C0@SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <17029_1462484835_572BBF63_17029_2323_1_opi9hqsl9b9tani0t0skkcuq.1462484831251@email.android.com> <SN1PR0501MB170976E947BEABC8FD591ED8C77C0@SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <28175_1463566739_573C4192_28175_2444_1_613f729b-d12e-5c48-29a1-ff000c1184a1@orange.com> <SN1PR0501MB17090A6F0AC5D3D447E21C28C7490@SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <D369475E.1A2CD7%sajassi@cisco.com> <SN1PR0501MB1709EA8CE5E1B3C52862015DC74F0@SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <575680F5.2030101@alcatel-lucent.com> <D37C3C0F.1A9A44%sajassi@cisco.com> <786b038a-bccb-28a7-30b9-73100e8f64f3@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <786b038a-bccb-28a7-30b9-73100e8f64f3@orange.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.4.160422
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.19.76.53]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1254"
Content-ID: <75AD3797D3FA39468BA737BB304D90C3@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/_pgkoLQiF2YyxuXPIz10SLCxwoM>
Subject: Re: [bess] [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs. draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps
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: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 05:33:02 -0000

Hi Thomas,

Referencing the section 8 of idr-tunnel-encap draft is too wide a scope
IMHO and maybe confusing, thus I'd like to narrow it down. I went over the
both sections 3.5 and 8 of the idr-tunnel-encap draft and with respect to
your comment, I’d like to narrow it to only section 8.2.2.2. ("When a
Valid VNI has not been Signaled”) with regard to its applicability to
evpn-overlay draft - to be more precise is the 2nd bullet of section
8.2.2.2. So, I’d like to change your suggested text to:

"Note that the procedure defined here to use the MPLS Label field to carry
the VNI in the presence of a Tunnel Encapsulation Extended Community
specifying the use of a VNI, is aligned with the procedures described in
section 8.2.2.2 of [tunnel-encap] (“When a Valid VNI has not been
Signaled”).

Cheers,
Ali



On 6/13/16, 8:49 AM, "BESS on behalf of Thomas Morin"
<bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of thomas.morin@orange.com> wrote:

>Hi Ali,
>
>The changes in -04 look good.
>
>I would have one suggestion: say explicitly that the "use the label as
>the VNI" behavior is  the same as what the tunnel encap says.
>
>This could be done by adding something like the following to section
>5.1.3 :
>
>Note that the procedure defined here to use the MPLS Label field to
>carry the VNI in the presence
>    of a Tunnel Encapsulation Extended Community specifying the use of a
>VNI, is
>    aligned with the procedures described in [tunnel-encap] (Section
>"Use of Virtual Network
>    Identifiers and Embedded Labels when Imposing a Tunnel Encapsulation
>" for "Labeled Address Families").
>
>Best,
>
>-Thomas
>
>
>
>Le 07/06/2016 à 18:04, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) a écrit :
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> We¹ll also add idr-tunnel-encaps a Informative reference. With respect
>>to
>> Tunnel Encap Extended Community (which is the only part of
>> idr-tunnel-encap used by evpn-overlay draft), idr-tunel-encap draft
>>itself
>> references RFC 5512.
>>
>> During the course of WG LC and RFC editorship of evpn-overlay draft, if
>>we
>> see that idr-tunnel-encap is progressing fast, then we can drop the
>> reference to RFC 5512 and make the reference to idr-tunnel-encap
>> Normative. Otherwise, we¹ll keep both references with RFC 5512 as
>> Normative and idr-tunnel-encap as Informative.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ali
>>
>> On 6/7/16, 1:08 AM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"
>> <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We are fine with keeping 5512 as the Normative reference for now.
>>> We would think it wise if the editors can add an Informative reference
>>> to draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps (with some text indicating that both
>>> specs provide the required support for the procedures).
>>> The ideal situation would be that tunnel-encaps progresses fast enough
>>> so that in the last stages before publishing evpn-overlay we can be in
>>>a
>>> situation to make tunnel-encaps the Normative reference. RFC 4897 would
>>> facilitate that by the way.
>>>
>>> If the WG has specific opinions on that matter, they are welcome.
>>>
>>> We take good note of the shepherd suggestion. We'll confirm who will
>>> shepherd the document after WG LC (we'll also call for volunteers
>>>during
>>> WG Last Call).
>>>
>>> Reviews are highly welcome anyway, in particular from people
>>> close to the topic or implementations, and ideally from more than one
>>> person, the best time being now or at least before the WG LC ends.
>>>
>>> We'll start the WG LC in a couple of days.
>>>
>>> Martin & Thomas
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 24/05/2016 15:39, John E Drake a écrit :
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Ali and I decided to keep the normative reference to RFC 5512 rather
>>>> than changing it to Eric¹s tunnel encapsulation draft because the
>>>> normative reference pre-dates Eric¹s draft and because our draft does
>>>> not use any of the new capabilities introduced in Eric¹s draft.
>>>>
>>>> Ali and I would also like to request that Jorge be the document
>>>>shepherd
>>>> for this draft.
>>>>
>>>> Yours Irrespectively,
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi@cisco.com]
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2016 3:05 AM
>>>> *To:* John E Drake; EXT -thomas.morin@orange.com; IDR; BESS;
>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay@tools.ietf.org; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia -
>>>> US);draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encap@tools.ietf.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay vs.
>>>> draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps
>>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> I have updated and published rev03 of even-overlay draft.
>>>>
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay/
>>>>
>>>> The main changes are:
>>>>
>>>>   1. section 10.2 ­ DCI using ASBR
>>>>   2. The setting of Ethernet tag and VNI fields ­ there were some
>>>>      inconsistencies in different sections. Section 5.1.3 captures the
>>>>      setting of these fields for different type of services in pretty
>>>>      good details. All other sections were cleaned up and now refer to
>>>>      section 5.1.3.
>>>>
>>>> Thomas,
>>>>
>>>> The draft is ready for its long-overdue WG LC considering how long its
>>>> has been around and its multi-vendor implementation status.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ali
>>>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>BESS mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess