Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07

"Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <pbrisset@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 1D9E6129506; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:39:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 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=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 Pq-3_dZXw85c; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:39:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23B35129505; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 18:39:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3392; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1487731155; x=1488940755; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=voS79M6ixPnFDQ25nwY0LV1mMpDSxITtOLUdtuetSxg=; b=eRVvvvUMBdz+EJH43b4SsVi2/bGX6Vdm8lUvBMTxDILY2vkCOcqVod+y QLe/u9dQRJMeYQ0XZ2T/4KDY8gtVV9zGnvvVeKDYCvpyetZOs/+98Sdkh y7jyG96f0E8q3M36+7f2c247yWPLaR5T8tJ5hEvdquZPFAkmZr0DawsgV Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CgAQBy+KxY/4QNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1FhgQkHg1SKCKdKgg0fC4V4AhqCVz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBYiiEcQIEAQEhEToLEAIBCBoCJgICAiULFRACBAENBYluDq8/giaLQAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFgQuFQYIFgmqEVBeCby6CMQEEnAsBkh6RD5MjAR84gQBTFT4RAYY2dYktgQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,192,1484006400"; d="scan'208";a="387878319"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 22 Feb 2017 02:39:14 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1M2dD8Q008566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Feb 2017 02:39:14 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-009.cisco.com (64.101.220.149) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:39:13 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-009.cisco.com ([64.101.220.149]) by XCH-RTP-009.cisco.com ([64.101.220.149]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 21:39:12 -0500
From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <pbrisset@cisco.com>
To: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>, Sami Boutros <sboutros@vmware.com>, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07
Thread-Index: AQHSjLTZFzkLr50d8EKaOAtlFa3FxQ==
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 02:39:12 +0000
Message-ID: <7B1517ED-B5C7-451A-9D97-52CDBBE2D205@cisco.com>
References: <E3DC567C-B8E8-4292-8424-FCE479B5714B@cisco.com> <8B8A0EBB-D0CF-4ABB-B9C5-51017A2A9962@ciena.com>
In-Reply-To: <8B8A0EBB-D0CF-4ABB-B9C5-51017A2A9962@ciena.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1e.0.170107
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.171.208]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0389F5C546A46F41B2EE345B5E79B5E1@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/hYuoAvF4eeYVSRRrlVi8MQMOf3Y>
Cc: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] AD Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-07
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: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 02:39:17 -0000

Himanshu,

I don’t think we should make the Eth-tag a MUST be 24 bit. It should be MAY  but if you decide to use 24 bits, it MUST be right aligned.

Regards,
Patrice Brissette

On 2017-02-21, 2:51 PM, "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com> wrote:

    ‘MAY’ does not work. 
    It has to be ‘MUST’, IMO. 
    
    Thanks,
    Himanshu
    
    On 2/21/17, 2:22 PM, "BESS on behalf of Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)" <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of pbrisset@cisco.com> wrote:
    
        Folks,
        
        Why don’t we simply mention that the Eth–Tag is a 32 bit value and MAY be set to a 24 bits instance
        When 24 bits value is used is MAY be right aligned.
        
        Regards,
        Patrice Brissette
        
        On 2017-02-21, 2:18 PM, "BESS on behalf of Sami Boutros" <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of sboutros@vmware.com> wrote:
        
            Hi John,
            
            I can add that the value is from 0 to 0x00ffffff, will that work?
            
            
            Thanks,
            
            Sami
            On 2/21/17, 10:56 AM, "John E Drake" <jdrake@juniper.net> wrote:
            
            >Sami,
            >
            >Snipped, comment inline
            >
            >Yours Irrespectively,
            >
            >John
            >
            >> >
            >> >> Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be set to the 24-bit VPWS service instance
            >> identifier value."
            >> >
            >> >
            >> >
            >> >Ok, but you still didn’t mention how the 24-bit value is to be aligned in the 32-
            >> bit field.  I’m guessing there will be some 0-padding, but will that the at the
            >> beginning or the end?
            >> >
            >> 
            >> I made the VPWS service instance identifier a 32-bit value in the new draft.
            >> 
            >
            >[JD]   I don't think you can do this as there are multiple implementations that use 24 bits  
            >
            _______________________________________________
            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