Re: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface - reg

Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com> Tue, 09 April 2019 06:11 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 9D951120750 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 23:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 TgokRS4gPcwQ for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 23:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x134.google.com (mail-lf1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::134]) (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 1F8601207D5 for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 23:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x134.google.com with SMTP id t15so7469097lfl.12 for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 23:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3KY1d3qAm6/aOrSNvj+c8XTmrldLGha3legp7tIXuks=; b=Rx3qOzZ2oIZhDUAkbTGnf5/67ruOaGhCijelmyVLCnKFHMRlLbnLnMOVl77xN+ovLv 1OQMJhjMtPIQ0nVR7Zrgjh7uwQe12On9goYsMga0A0kPHVZdBrfGLLb7+avjeWKjaXeU hfjweuZF1kxWEjbigBd+0FfEx/EutYIQ0JxLPa0XE+ssUMZk546Df7nPzB6u+HSJgkqz Thn+T0DXuXyfsX1VYP6Bt8IpxwEYLN8EyY0BA+JiwEbfuLZ/h7y+xk997fkexzn4RHx6 XhdA4Cw8X/dyczixiF0508YV7M3tnkcgUA9vntobXowETfAu/baWOJwUk+9z2uw72JFh +EOA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3KY1d3qAm6/aOrSNvj+c8XTmrldLGha3legp7tIXuks=; b=fnku6PSfpMrSskbrvyM/Az7keeK6SmWqCqNlCIYa7Mr+BwuOlITm8NmTVS9hnYVOrq ScJfXJu8Qmsj5mA3aeU4cYB6gq25NTb8SrBrdSC2U+hN0I/OBoQENMkCbmVShNlSXqh3 STgowfTL5WQDDOq9P1A4tDJcxzJUlCTWIc72f1NlKe2NAdPcvAnXfPZ0IewVku0L6Fbe AjU07QbzIz4S7OICGQ8wU6ClfDdJXTlkSRPO40u55w87cYUd6NWazatxeWRbo/56cgnk +1Pbq+9Ai/o7YD2E1YmTBGl+ylticsIzbOF22rehJX2d7romukQhC2SmYq8kgppk+RfQ hnjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXDK6NjIDVsztJQQpBMnDhgpU1DX2sIkJGg4mfRy18CBN+ztv+J i5fXR42qiC00l1pCgzxk/EBHmbGn8Hp5iF27L8s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxPfm+Bg2PHCaXF/P4xlNj6c1Ppc38GZ0fEpHM8kP64Q+UFybl2Pge3UWoWcJqxxnLHTKfcp1w7DAiCMAeZeTc=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:485a:: with SMTP id 26mr17958659lfy.128.1554790257286; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 23:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <09CBA32C-C703-408F-9F73-9F26D8FD1C25@nokia.com> <CAKz0y8zUim0pJ56T317LchQMyaQyn8Ba9S5BYVs4NrgTVn+DXQ@mail.gmail.com> <7076E872-08AF-4665-9187-0E5BA2140370@nokia.com> <CAKz0y8y1j1-BcPvFsO6GSb+w3dQHngPzx6V77fXrCgrdMUwKPw@mail.gmail.com> <D8A4C503-1E33-425B-B237-6DC427F97DB3@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <D8A4C503-1E33-425B-B237-6DC427F97DB3@nokia.com>
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 11:40:45 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKz0y8yGbSWBMqrY9Zk-wC7oTRWOgyWRzdkNFGhgAv8GRwSDWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>
Cc: Jaikumar Somasundaram <jaikumar.somasundaram@ericsson.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, P Muthu Arul Mozhi <p.muthu.arul.mozhi@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fc6441058612d076"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/hlhTYAih5gAwuFj38upn2tsFnfs>
Subject: Re: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface - reg
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, 09 Apr 2019 06:11:06 -0000

Hi Jorge,

Okay, thanks for the clarification..

Regards,
Muthu

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 11:17 AM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <
jorge.rabadan@nokia.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> I think the definition of Ethernet Tag in the framework draft should be
> clear enough.
>
> There are implementations using configured IDs.
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 2:54 AM
> *To: *"Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
> >
> *Cc: *Jaikumar Somasundaram <jaikumar.somasundaram@ericsson.com>, "
> bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, P Muthu Arul Mozhi <
> p.muthu.arul.mozhi@ericsson.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface
> - reg
>
>
>
> Hi Jorge,
>
>
>
> For EVPN VPWS, I understand that service instance identifies are used as
> Ethernet Tags in the DF election. However, for EVPN VPLS is it common to
> configure anything other than the VLAN ID (VID) as the Ethernet Tag? Do we
> have vendor implementations providing such an Ethernet Tag configuration
> different from the VID for EVPN VPLS?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Muthu
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:49 PM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <
> jorge.rabadan@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> The Ethernet Tag that you use for DF Election does not even need to match
> what you have in the data path.
>
> Note that the definition says even “configured IDs”.
>
>
>
> As long as you use the same ID for the BD on all the PEs attached to the
> ES, you are fine.
>
>
>
> Thx
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *From: *Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5:10 PM
> *To: *"Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com
> >
> *Cc: *Jaikumar Somasundaram <jaikumar.somasundaram@ericsson.com>, "
> bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, P Muthu Arul Mozhi <
> p.muthu.arul.mozhi@ericsson.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface
> - reg
>
>
>
> Thanks, Jorge. It is clear that the Ethernet Tag needs to be different
> from 0 for the purpose of DF election..
>
>
>
> One of the options a provider has for supporting untagged frames in EVPN
> VPLS multihoming in VID translation...a rule to match untagged frames and
> impose a VID at the ingress and another rule to match that VID and dispose
> it at the egress.
>
>
>
> Are there any other options that can interop well?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Muthu
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:11 AM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <
> jorge.rabadan@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I think you should check out
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-09
>
>
>
> This draft updates RFC7432 in certain aspects of the DF Election, and it
> is already at the RFC editor.
>
>
>
> Check out the use of Ethernet Tag in the document.
>
>
>
>    o Ethernet Tag - used to represent a Broadcast Domain that is
>
>      configured on a given ES for the purpose of DF election. Note that
>
>      any of the following may be used to represent a Broadcast Domain:
>
>      VIDs (including Q-in-Q tags), configured IDs, VNI (VXLAN Network
>
>      Identifiers), normalized VID, I-SIDs (Service Instance
>
>      Identifiers), etc., as long as the representation of the broadcast
>
>      domains is configured consistently across the multi-homed PEs
>
>      attached to that ES. The Ethernet Tag value MUST be different from
>
>      zero.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *From: *BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Jaikumar Somasundaram <
> jaikumar.somasundaram@ericsson.com>
> *Date: *Friday, April 5, 2019 at 6:15 AM
> *To: *"bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
> *Cc: *P Muthu Arul Mozhi <p.muthu.arul.mozhi@ericsson.com>
> *Subject: *[bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface -
> reg
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> RFC7432, section 8.5, talks about DF election algorithm (service carving
> algorithm)
>
> only for <ES, VLAN> for VLAN-based service or <ES, VLAN bundle> for VLAN-(aware)
>
> bundle service.
>
>
>
> But there wont be any vlan id for untagged interface and so I wonder
>
> how the service carving algorithm can be applied to elect the DF.
>
> Also, should I use the lower VLAN ID even in the case of VLAN-bundle
>
> service, for electing the DF?
>
>
>
> Could some one help me to understand this please?
>
>
>
> ==========<snip from RFC 7432, section 8.5>===============
> 8.5 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7432#section-8.5>.  Designated
> Forwarder Election
>
> …
>
>    The default procedure for DF election at the granularity of <ES,
>
>    VLAN> for VLAN-based service or <ES, VLAN bundle> for VLAN-(aware)
>
>    bundle service is referred to as "service carving".
>
> …
>
>       Assuming a redundancy group of N PE nodes, for VLAN-based service,
>
>       the PE with ordinal i is the DF for an <ES, VLAN V> when (V mod N)
>
>       = i.  In the case of VLAN-(aware) bundle service, then the
>
>       numerically lowest VLAN value in that bundle on that ES MUST be
>
>       used in the modulo function.
>
> …
>
> =========<snip end>======================================
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards
>
> Jaikumar S
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
>