[bess] [Errata Rejected] RFC8365 (7735)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 12 February 2024 15:17 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.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 6FE7EC14F6A5; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 07:17:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.959
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.959 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N1nXz6Mzv7qJ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 07:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDE37C151986; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 07:17:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 8964619768F6; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 07:17:17 -0800 (PST)
To: gsinha@juniper.net, sajassi@cisco.com, jdrake@juniper.net, nabil.bitar@nokia.com, rshekhar@juniper.net, uttaro@att.com, wim.henderickx@nokia.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: jgs@juniper.net, iesg@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240212151717.8964619768F6@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 07:17:17 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/dty25nyievDEqAo0S8qcj7wXXsM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:44:19 -0800
Subject: [bess] [Errata Rejected] RFC8365 (7735)
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 15:17:54 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC8365, "A Network Virtualization Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7735 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Gaurav Sinha <gsinha@juniper.net> Date Reported: 2023-12-19 Rejected by: John Scudder (IESG) Section: 8.3.1 Original Text ------------- Since VXLAN and NVGRE encapsulations do not include the ESI label, other means of performing the split-horizon filtering function must be devised for these encapsulations. Corrected Text -------------- The "ESI Label" field, in the "ESI Label" Extended Community, is set to all zeros in case of VxLAN encapsulation. Since even though the VXLAN and NVGRE encapsulations send the "ESI Label" Extended Community, yet they do not set the "ESI label" field in it. Therefore, other means of performing the split-horizon filtering function must be devised for these encapsulations. Notes ----- It should be mentioned somewhere in this RFC document that the "ESI Label" Extended Community is sent with VxLAN encapsulation too, just like it is used with MPLS, but with the "MPLS Label" field set to all zeros in case of VxLAN. Otherwise, it gives rise to the unanswered question in mind, about the value of that field, given that there are no labels in VxLAN. --VERIFIER NOTES-- This change appears to be unneeded in this document, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/ztIEqCJh23KdAbEaec-zeQBwdSs/ Related (and mentioned in the referenced email thread) rfc7432bis does clarify the situation with the note, "The ESI label value MAY be zero if no split-horizon filtering procedures are required in any of the VLANs of the Ethernet Segment. This is the case in [RFC8214]". -------------------------------------- RFC8365 (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-12) -------------------------------------- Title : A Network Virtualization Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN) Publication Date : March 2018 Author(s) : A. Sajassi, Ed., J. Drake, Ed., N. Bitar, R. Shekhar, J. Uttaro, W. Henderickx Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : BGP Enabled ServiceS Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [bess] [Errata Rejected] RFC8365 (7735) RFC Errata System