Re: [bess] 答复: 答复: 答复: Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN

["Bertrand Duvivier (bduvivie)" <[e-mail]>]

Rt range is large enough field to not overlap between l2 and l3 rt's and rt rewrite is also possible

Adding newer safi does add lots of complexity as well
- increase bgp db
- increase bgp stack to process newer safi 
- for evpn mix routed and bridged environment (some pe bridging, some other routing) we will have to send 2 bgp fs with 2 differents safi's



Sent from iPAD


> On Nov 14, 2014, at 01:42, Haoweiguo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Wim,
> It seems to be a solution. Another problem:
> Current BGP flow spec for L2 VPN /L3 VPN relies on Rout Target for policy import/export. If using unified solution, RT can't overlap between different applications(L2VPN,L3VPN...). If using separating AFI/SAFI solution, no RT constraint issue.
> Maybe there are other questions for unified solution, i would like to hear other expert's comments on your proposal.
> Thanks
> weiguo
> 
> ________________________________________
> 发件人: BESS [[e-mail]] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2014年11月14日 8:27
> 收件人: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS
> 抄送: IDR Chairs
> 主题: Re: [bess] 答复:  答复:  Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
> 
> We define a new AFI/SAFI that accommodates all we have + include L2
> extensions.
> Operators that don’t need L2 extensions keep what they have.
> Operators that need L2 extensions go to the new method or mix the new
> method with the old methods per service type.
> 
> Make sense?
> 
>> On 13/11/14 14:16, "Haoweiguo" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> How to achieve compatability with current existed flowspec[RFC5575]
>> applications?
>> Thanks
>> weiguo
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> 发件人: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [[e-mail]]
>> 发送时间: 2014年11月14日 8:14
>> 收件人: Haoweiguo; Thomas Morin; BESS
>> 抄送: IDR Chairs
>> 主题: Re: 答复: [bess] Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
>> 
>> If we define a new things I prefer to address the wider issue and include
>> L2 in that.
>> 
>>> On 13/11/14 14:13, "Haoweiguo" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Wim,
>>> Allocating different AFI/SAFI(s) for each flow spec application is a
>>> applicable solution. Theoretically, unified mechanism for all flowspec
>>> can be designed, but it maybe a more harder work in IDR.
>>> Thanks
>>> weiguo
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________
>>> 发件人: BESS [[e-mail]] 代表 Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
>>> [[e-mail]]
>>> 发送时间: 2014年11月14日 7:55
>>> 收件人: Thomas Morin; BESS
>>> 抄送: IDR Chairs
>>> 主题: Re: [bess] Flowspec for L2VPN and E-VPN
>>> 
>>> As I stated in the IDR meeting my observation is that we require to many
>>> AFI/SAFI(s) for all flow spec functions. Flow spec in general is
>>> providing
>>> match criteria¹s with related actions. Given the proposal on Flowspec for
>>> L2 is new we should look at the bigger picture.
>>> In My view we need a mechanism in BGP to advertise Flowspec match
>>> criteria¹s with related actions and they should cover L2/L3-IPv4/IPv6.
>>> 
>>>> On 13/11/14 13:44, "Thomas Morin" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi WG,
>>>> 
>>>> A heads up...
>>>> 
>>>> These two drafts relate to BESS and thus may be of interest to us:
>>>> - draft-hao-idr-flowspec-l2vpn
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html?draft=draft-hao-idr-flowspec-l2vpn-01> (on
>>>> idr agenda, being presented right now)
>>>> - draft-hao-idr-flowspec-evpn
>>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hao-idr-flowspec-evpn-00>
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> -Thomas
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> BESS mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> BESS mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess