Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree

"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 07:18 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 67CC012DC81 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 00:18:30 -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 ZZN24g2ItjTT for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 00:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EB0212B05A for <bess@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 00:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=17280; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1464074308; x=1465283908; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=FJ7VktrUfYlmLFmbfExZ8ZWMxS2Po73oEo11ETeDEpk=; b=ARnGJDMkFywyar/Kx+Kg9HdD+kRtQDWTAmUaU5I0wuYQwen0KLJoLpyg HHEMxWU/iIU0lpau6Fmt9PYo1XSv3fu40b+iMahURJt6PFjZuQ+D6tPTg wo72veCC39wIKye4SfsPl1R4Ay/umiXePYv29geP+8Jif1INKrRMFako/ s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BLAgDT/kNX/4gNJK1bgzdWbw4GuXcBD?= =?us-ascii?q?YF2FwuFbwIcgRU4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RCAQEBBAEBARoGETkBFwQCAQgRBAEBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?CIwMCAgIlCxQBCAgCBAESFIgbDrI/kWgBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXB?= =?us-ascii?q?YEBiG+BA4QREQEcFxWCVYJZBZg3AYV/iCCBaYRPgyyFOI9LAR4BAUKDbW6IHDZ?= =?us-ascii?q?/AQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,359,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="110353731"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 May 2016 07:18:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4O7IQf0014477 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 24 May 2016 07:18:26 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, 24 May 2016 03:18:25 -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, 24 May 2016 03:18:25 -0400
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, "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/U9KT8MU0ut9l7k3idEc58OWnfAgAhLYwCAAYwoAIBC0CQAgBXcMACARGjgAIAS+kOA
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 07:18:25 +0000
Message-ID: <D3694CA4.1A2DB8%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> <D3596260.198C98%sajassi@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D3596260.198C98%sajassi@cisco.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: [10.24.116.190]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <E4CA9AF22D716348AD8B061013498802@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/a75mopsXCz_EBh6YARlke8Uf4VE>
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 07:18:30 -0000

Hi Thomas,

Can you please progress this draft. The WG LC was completed on 3/29 and
all comments except a single optional comment were addressed before the
last IETF. The single optional comment was addressed couple of weeks ago
and the draft was re-published then.

Regards,
Ali


On 5/11/16, 10:30 PM, "BESS on behalf of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)"
<bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of sajassi@cisco.com> wrote:

>
>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>et>; EXT -
>>>>> thomas.morin@orange.com <thomas.morin@orange.com>om>; BESS
>>>>><bess@ietf.org><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>rg>; 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 mailing list
>BESS@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess