Re: [bess] 答复: [Mail regarding rfc7432]Could you clarify which IP address we use to construct P2P tunnel for ingress replication.

"Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <> Mon, 01 July 2019 07:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B49E12000E for <>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 00:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.401
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QZMAX2cbsU4i for <>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 00:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe0c::72a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63B0612021B for <>; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 00:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1-nokia-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ESrBewFuHo0nZQda4Obzd36bFZjgAYUfxdSyrCNBQDs=; b=sWsn+G2+0C4SUA+y6rrFhDaiHAvp8XjeDcEk+X+66LFm63DcduJlnR72Z0+ZSOEAMJMlbCpk2IM7kxggiF70oqjWTbsVzyt+N/sk4NQlIS8mNH+f5uUJKf3C2m8ZDpsxAIPll0AGWTEJLALCt1hSp/OKI7hYgk4ShRSSr6x8zLY=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2052.8; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 07:10:25 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::2ce0:636d:59e3:5654]) by ([fe80::2ce0:636d:59e3:5654%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2052.010; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 07:10:25 +0000
From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <>
To: "huangyang (E)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: 答复: [bess] [Mail regarding rfc7432]Could you clarify which IP address we use to construct P2P tunnel for ingress replication.
Thread-Index: AQHVL9wN1q79l7i2nUi3u2REfdTCWQ==
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 07:10:24 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1a.0.190609
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0f00e6e6-004f-41bf-3234-08d6fdf33062
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM0PR07MB4754;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0PR07MB4754:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-forefront-prvs: 00851CA28B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(136003)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(366004)(396003)(199004)(189003)(53936002)(36756003)(6512007)(54896002)(236005)(7736002)(66066001)(66574012)(8936002)(81166006)(2616005)(81156014)(66476007)(66556008)(64756008)(91956017)(66446008)(66946007)(73956011)(76116006)(6306002)(476003)(486006)(256004)(14444005)(5660300002)(6116002)(33656002)(2501003)(6486002)(2906002)(86362001)(6436002)(316002)(58126008)(110136005)(229853002)(478600001)(186003)(3846002)(26005)(14454004)(71190400001)(71200400001)(6246003)(224303003)(25786009)(68736007)(99286004)(102836004)(6506007)(53546011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0PR07MB4754;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: JCxmFSE3OlXEGdUfEc4W/f/i+Ex++MqG/uueOf/iTFfeej0JrcENXk/Dge4MGTlBwUZkHUUD/GxsWu+ykpDoKOPMYxN6z0S1JqsZqhsd8l5ReLNDZEAx0gyCPkj3l72fFHQyOy2V7sgRW7u4I1PrMKE2Un501rCLa2tJsOo4fBL83McJVgJNTCUIQoqbwPD60RiP7FleeQK3kEi+zLBeTzZqWnhm0vVKtIROMiN9DS3XawU17Sf5nloYHtH4088WdHdMU9hcNO9vxQLHj9CWEBFFn8hQgF968W1W1gl7c100CVKMklsQTWqOiWuLoV1E3N5xD1Tf9WRJn9nuOzkeX+PpGdmzuVMgMI9TTHBe+nvkAVpTBTMOSTMc5lpeP5ltKjWdxqgi8mzhsw0O39nBSIiPCeLwScFnRciI91o5wWk=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9878FE0EE5E6416EA3CCB0BEDE3F9257nokiacom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0f00e6e6-004f-41bf-3234-08d6fdf33062
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Jul 2019 07:10:24.8996 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR07MB4754
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] 答复: [Mail regarding rfc7432]Could you clarify which IP address we use to construct P2P tunnel for ingress replication.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 07:10:37 -0000

Note that I mentioned the “received originating and next-hop”. A different thing is what you set when constructing the route, I think it is clear in RFC8365 and RFC7432.
My two cents..


From: "huangyang (E)" <>
Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 at 9:07 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <>, "" <>
Subject: 答复: [bess] [Mail regarding rfc7432]Could you clarify which IP address we use to construct P2P tunnel for ingress replication.

Thanks for your reply, but I see in RFC 8365, there is description like this :

In section “9.  Support for Multicast”: “The originating router's IP address field is set to the NVE's IP address.”

In section “5.1.3.  Constructing EVPN BGP Routes” : “The Next Hop field of the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute of the route MUST
   be set to the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the NVE.  The remaining fields
   in each route are set as per [RFC7432].”

It is confused that if the addresses described in above two places is the same ip address or not. So I am not confirm that there

may be some situations where the originating router's IP address is not equal to bgp next hop.

Or the IMET route construction in vxlan scenario is not follow the same rule as in mpls scenario(rfc7432) ?


Yang Huang

发件人: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) []
发送时间: 2019年7月1日 14:51
收件人: huangyang (E) <>;
主题: Re: [bess] [Mail regarding rfc7432]Could you clarify which IP address we use to construct P2P tunnel for ingress replication.


I think you should construct the ingress replication tunnels using the next hop of the IMET routes, otherwise you will have issues with inter-as model B scenarios. The received originating IP and next-hop at the ingress PE do not need to be the same.

From: BESS <<>> on behalf of "huangyang (E)" <<>>
Date: Monday, July 1, 2019 at 8:46 AM
To: "<>" <<>>
Subject: [bess] [Mail regarding rfc7432]Could you clarify which IP address we use to construct P2P tunnel for ingress replication.

Hi WG,

In the charpter 11.2 of RFC 7432:

11.2.  P-Tunnel Identification
"...+ If the PE that originates the advertisement uses ingress
replication for the P-tunnel for EVPN, the route MUST include the
PMSI Tunnel attribute with the Tunnel Type set to Ingress
Replication and the Tunnel Identifier set to a routable address of
the PE."

a routable address of the PE is not so strict. And does this mean
we use the Tunnel Identifier to construct P2P tunnel for ingress
replication, or we use the Originating Router's IP Address in the
IMET route key, or they are equivalent meaning?

And I see it use the BGP Next hop to construct P2P tunnel for BUM
ingress relication in RFC8365, Should Originating Router’s IP Address,
the IP address of BGP Next hop, Tunnel Identifier in PMSI, be the same
IP address?

Now, this may cause interact problems when it implements differently.
Could you clarify this? Thanks.


Yang Huang