[bess] Question on IRB MAC in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding

Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com> Tue, 19 March 2019 10:30 UTC

Return-Path: <muthu.arul@gmail.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 DC8AC1310EE for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 03:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 JGMTevhthV-2 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 03:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12b.google.com (mail-lf1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BD23126C87 for <bess@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 03:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id u2so13901006lfd.4 for <bess@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 03:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IiT7W9VabWvlPgOeF5Y2Q+0rfbRN7kpolypJU598L3Q=; b=ZaVapQLo/RY4YXxiWyMypBq2DSst9Yx5brQ00PbpPwgiW2Qp2MAA8XARCT6cDuTTfS hb/fd1VETuc9eU3iTsxm8C2hxuNTjIjYFsFZRLUk1EvFstw4BRnaRm6PFEkOOlP+x8BF aa++aO/RUqFiyDgvWblEg+rl4jHkn/4wRTz6DgqODH3Q5ngl8qv5Vxoh5e6qXeKf2ri3 LuIpJwwdbfHiIsGhgr1UjOlO12tjhNOHaFk8kj3xYdyEs4SG0ND9pMy3CQdiDLjGp62A 8naLZq80s0p2Dq2MM4LdF/sDHUPUkJqD+ySrJhpB647XJwo0QgCvbgLmJLHt2Nixntqe cDEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IiT7W9VabWvlPgOeF5Y2Q+0rfbRN7kpolypJU598L3Q=; b=H5zaSTSbiCv3Y7zjp9QME1SrSDvxu6GVS4lNoSJfos8zScuZkA+IcQWyFHSAft8Dop 5FCyO4IHqPlCNnDB1ih94pT8UeIwaU3mjD0YbBVIXjkgSw7xE5kux8n9L9oTpsAwNhDA 0o6ycXDR2Qj8Vistbal0P+AUyobT4lAVxyl+VMvGE+tcTVrSl8ZtftLKlocJGFPDz/Jd i6zXs+YwtbQIZiSZM9JUPMoRZ2tj29hQET8MFn0P7CaPEc7LmJqvfyRdp8qVt7mwyN2E c1DlRu3y00q2NO/XplauDkgmVzKleOyX0M1F0yv68ST6RIPH9ckGExnZYATIHaO67e9b i13g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWS7g8RnVT0OXrtsAVl9qwjx/P3oovvI0fjSP6f8r6RX2ub8XjE ieokubMULej3Q2DF80VaTGcKurWdPvw/xmS/fPOPBwkyi4w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzZ3L4zdaYJE5FX9CSLDFSgrLbOSTOXP9fa4qwdrALhGgVO6xfbmPcf9YN2n4TmeCXbf523Bzpdeiw041cc9WI=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:6e0b:: with SMTP id j11mr12125712lfc.124.1552991446216; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 03:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:00:35 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKz0y8y2=EowOpOCfw17bQnd4bE1Zpg4F12_HOj35ewkLNOUGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: bess@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007db2b005846fffec"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/hl3Rn9f0-AipzuvhdLXN2qljQbY>
Subject: [bess] Question on IRB MAC in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:30:50 -0000

draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forwarding describes two ways of
provisioning the default gateway MAC and IP addresses on the IRB interface
associated with the corresponding subnet:

<snip>
   1. All the PEs for a given tenant subnet use the same anycast default
   gateway IP and MAC addresses . On each PE, this default gateway IP
   and MAC addresses correspond to the IRB interface connecting the BT
   associated with the tenant's VLAN to the corresponding tenant's IP-
   VRF.

   2. Each PE for a given tenant subnet uses the same anycast default
   gateway IP address but its own MAC address. These MAC addresses are
   aliased to the same anycast default gateway IP address through the
   use of the Default Gateway extended community as specified in
   [RFC7432], which is carried in the EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement routes.
</snip>

Further below it says:

<snip>
   Irrespective of using only the anycast address or both anycast and
   non-anycast addresses on the same IRB, when a TS sends an ARP request
   or ND Neighbor Solicitation (NS) to the PE that is attached to, the
   request is sent for the anycast IP address of the IRB interface
   associated with the TS's subnet and the reply will use anycast MAC
   address (in both Source MAC in the Ethernet header and Sender
   hardware address in the payload).
</snip>

In the above, it says the ARP response or NS will use the anycast MAC
address. The question is, how is this feasible if the second option of
provisioning
the default gateway MAC and IP addresses on the IRB interface are chosen,
where each PE for a given tenant subnet uses the same anycast default
gateway IP address but its own MAC address?

Should it instead say:
  the request is sent for the anycast IP address of the IRB interface
   associated with the TS's subnet and the reply will use *configured*
   MAC address?

i.e. s/anycast MAC/configured MAC?

Regards,
Muthu