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

["Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[e-mail]>]

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)"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>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" <[e-mail]>
>>>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:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:04 AM
>>>>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>; EXT -
>>>>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; BESS
>>>>><[e-mail]>;
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> 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"
>>>>> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:51 AM
>>>>>>> To: BESS <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> BESS mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> 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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess