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

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

Hi Thomas,

I and other co-authors will be looking forward to receiving your write-up
and answer the question regarding existing implementation. From my side, I
have the info and I am sure it is the same for other co-authors. Thanks
for giving the heads-up since some co-authors need to check with their
PLMs before making public statement regarding their implementation.

Regards,
Ali

On 6/8/16, 3:12 AM, "BESS on behalf of Thomas Morin"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi Ali,
>
>I haven't started yet the shepherd write-up, but it's on my todo list.
>
>I will do a shepherd review along with the write-up, which may lead to
>resolving points with authors, but I can't tell before I get to do it.
>
>One thing that can be useful to collect right now is any information you
>may have on existing implementations (although this draft was WGLC'd
>before we setup BESS one-implementation policy, this question has been
>part of shepherd write-up question, even if its not considered a gating
>criteria).
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>-Thomas
>
>
>2016-06-06, Ali Sajassi (sajassi):
>>
>> Is there anything else you need from me or other co-authors to progress
>> this daft? The WG LC was completed before last IETF.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ali
>>
>> On 5/24/16, 12:18 AM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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