[bess] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 3.3 MAC Mobility

The handling of MAC mobility between the EVPN and VPLS PEs seems a bit, for a
lack of a better term, "not seamless" to me. While only using EVPN a MAC that
has moved will get propagated out without *initiating* any sort of BUM traffic
itself as described Section 15 of RFC7432. If I understand this document
correctly, if a MAC moves onto a segment with a VPLS PE, traffic towards it
will be blackholed until it initiates BUM traffic which is not the case when
the MAC moves between EVPN PEs. Did I get this right? If so, I think this
limitation needs to be highlighted a bit more prominently.