Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree

["Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" <[e-mail]>]

We will release our code next year in-line with the draft




On 09/06/16 16:33, "BESS on behalf of John E Drake" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>Thomas,
>
>E-TREE for EVPN (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-05) will be GA this year.  Root or leaf role can be defined on a port or VLAN basis, and Single-Active and All-Active multi-homing are supported.  E-TREE for PBB-EVPN is on the roadmap.
>
>Yours Irrespectively,
>
>John
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BESS [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:13 AM
>> To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; BESS; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree
>> 
>> Hi Ali,
>> 
>> I haven't started yet the shepherd write-up, but it's on my todo list.
>> 
>> I will do a shepherd review along with the write-up, which may lead to resolving points with
>> authors, but I can't tell before I get to do it.
>> 
>> One thing that can be useful to collect right now is any information you may have on
>> existing implementations (although this draft was WGLC'd before we setup BESS one-
>> implementation policy, this question has been part of shepherd write-up question, even if
>> its not considered a gating criteria).
>> 
>> Thanks in advance,
>> 
>> -Thomas
>> 
>> 
>> 2016-06-06, Ali Sajassi (sajassi):
>> >
>> > Is there anything else you need from me or other co-authors to
>> > progress this daft? The WG LC was completed before last IETF.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Ali
>> >
>> > On 5/24/16, 12:18 AM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Hi Thomas,
>> >>
>> >> Can you please progress this draft. The WG LC was completed on 3/29
>> >> and all comments except a single optional comment were addressed
>> >> before the last IETF. The single optional comment was addressed
>> >> couple of weeks ago and the draft was re-published then.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Ali
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 5/11/16, 10:30 PM, "BESS on behalf of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)"
>> >> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Thomas,
>> >>>
>> >>> I just made the final edits to evpn-etree draft and published it as
>> >>> rev05.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Ali
>> >>>
>> >>> On 3/29/16, 2:49 AM, "[e-mail]"
>> >>> <[e-mail]>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This WG Last Call is now closed and the document will move to the
>> >>>> next steps toward publication.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The modification mentioned below will be incorporated in next release.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Thomas
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2016-03-15, Ali Sajassi (sajassi):
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Jeffrey,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 2/1/16, 2:41 PM, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[e-mail]>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Ali,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> One more question about PBB-EVPN.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> For the regular EVPN, section 3.3.2 talks about a situation where
>> >>>>>> the only traffic is BUM. There is no need for mac learning in
>> >>>>>> that situation.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> For PBB-EVPN, I assume this is also possible. With this, there is
>> >>>>>> no need to advertise per-ES B-mac addresses - a single pair of
>> >>>>>> global root/leaf B-mac addresses are enough.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Perhaps this can be mentioned for parity/completeness. Of course,
>> >>>>>> this is not a big deal and either way it's fine - but I do want
>> >>>>>> to ask to confirm my understanding.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We’ll do.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>> Ali
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Jeffrey
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>>>> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:04 AM
>> >>>>>>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[e-mail]>; EXT -
>> >>>>>>> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; BESS
>> >>>>>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Hi Jeffrey,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the review. Your comments helps tighten the draft
>> >>>>>>> some more.
>> >>>>>>> I
>> >>>>>>> have updated the draft and will publish it next (rev04).
>> >>>>>>> Majority of the comments were editorial in nature for better
>> >>>>>>> clarifications. Since the existing draft (rev03) reflects the
>> >>>>>>> consensus regarding our several rounds of discussions where we
>> >>>>>>> have taken care of the technical items, it is consistent with
>> >>>>>>> our expectation of not seeing any major issue during the LC.
>> >>>>>>> Please refer to my replies in line.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>> Ali
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 1/27/16, 5:26 PM, "BESS on behalf of Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang"
>> >>>>>>> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I was involved in relevant discussions, and have reviewed once
>> >>>>>>>> more for this LC.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I support the publication, but with the following
>> >>>>>>>> questions/comments.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 2.1 Scenario 1: Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>    ... If the number of EVIs is very large
>> >>>>>>>>    (e.g., more than 32K or 64K), then RT type 0 as defined in
>> >>>>>>>> [RFC4360]
>> >>>>>>>>    SHOULD be used; otherwise, RT type 2 is sufficient.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> RFC 7153 should be referenced for "Type 2".
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Done.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Additionally, why is 32K mentioned? I can understand the 64k part.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Removed 32K since the example is clear enough with 64K
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>    ... the MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST be tagged with an
>> >>>>>>>>    indication of whether they originated from a Leaf AC or not.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps change the last line to "indication if they originated
>> >>>>>>>> from a Leaf AC"? Packets from a root AC are not tagged with a
>> >>>>>>>> leaf indication.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> OK. Better yet. It should say ³indication when they originated
>> >>>>>>> from a leaf AC².
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>    Other mechanisms for identifying whether an egress AC is a
>> >>>>>>>> root or
>> >>>>>>>>    leaf is beyond the scope of this document.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Should "egress" be "ingress" in the above paragraph? Or simply
>> >>>>>>>> removed?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Nice catch! It is ³ingress². It is now corrected.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>    ... This Leaf MPLS label is advertised to other PE devices,
>> >>>>>>>>    using a new EVPN Extended Community called E-TREE Extended
>> >>>>>>>> Community
>> >>>>>>>>    (section 5.1) along with an Ethernet A-D per ES route with
>> >>>>>>>> ESI of
>> >>>>>>>>    zero and a set of Route Targets (RTs) corresponding to all
>> >>>>>>>> the leaf
>> >>>>>>>>    ACs on the PE.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps change the last sentence to "... corresponding to all
>> >>>>>>>> EVIs that have leaf sites on the PE."
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> The second to last sentence of section 3.2.1 says the same
>> >>>>>>> thing. I changed this sentence and removed the 2nd to last sentence.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 3.2.3 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a leaf
>> >>>>>>>> AC
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>    In this scenario, it is assumed that a multi-homed Ethernet
>> >>>>>>>> Segment
>> >>>>>>>>    (ES) can have a mixed of both leaf and root ACs with each AC
>> >>>>>>>>    designating a subnet (e.g., a VLAN).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I understand that different VLANs on the same ES could be roots
>> >>>>>>>> or leaves. I suppose it's more important to say that for the
>> >>>>>>>> same vlan, different PEs on the same ES must have the same
>> >>>>>>>> root/leaf designation.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> That¹s given.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps the first sentence could be reworded as the following
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>> capture
>> >>>>>>>> the above point:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>    While different ACs (VLANs) on the same ES could have different
>> >>>>>>>>    root/leaf designation (some being roots and some being leaves),
>> >>>>>>>>    the same VLAN does have the same root/leaf designation on all
>> >>>>>>>>    PEs on the same ES.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> That¹s fine. It makes it more clear.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> For the following:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>    ... the PEs with Leaf sites perform MAC learning in the
>> >>>>>>>>    data-path over their Ethernet Segments, and advertise
>> >>>>>>>> reachability
>> >>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>>    EVPN MAC Advertisement routes which are imported only by PEs
>> >>>>>>>> with at
>> >>>>>>>>    least one Root site in the EVI. A PE with only Leaf sites
>> >>>>>>>> will not
>> >>>>>>>>    import these routes. PEs with Root and/or Leaf sites may use the
>> >>>>>>>>    Ethernet A-D routes for aliasing (in the case of multi-homed
>> >>>>>>>>    segments) and for mass MAC withdrawal per [RFC 7432].
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The above seems to contradict with the recommendation in
>> >>>>>>>> Section 2.2.
>> >>>>>>> If
>> >>>>>>>> the context is the scenario described in section 2.1 then
>> >>>>>>>> that's fine, but the text does not have a clear context.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Agreed. Updated the section to indicate the context is section 2.1.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 3.3.2 E-Tree without MAC Learning
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>    The PEs implementing an E-Tree service need not perform MAC
>> >>>>>>>> learning
>> >>>>>>>>    when the traffic flows between Root and Leaf sites are
>> >>>>>>>> multicast or
>> >>>>>>>>    broadcast.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I suppose an "only" word should be added at the end of the
>> >>>>>>>> above
>> >>>>>>> sentence.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Agreed.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>    The fields of the IMET route are populated per the
>> >>>>>>>> procedures
>> >>>>>>> defined
>> >>>>>>>>    in [RFC7432], and the route import rules are as described in
>> >>>>>>> previous
>> >>>>>>>>    sections.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The route import rules described in previous sections are for
>> >>>>>>>> MAC
>> >>>>>>> routes,
>> >>>>>>>> not IMET routes. Additionally, those rules may not be
>> >>>>>>>> recommended, so might as well delete the last sentence.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Changed the last sentence to ³Š, and the multicast tunnel setup
>> >>>>>>> criteria are as described in the previous section.²
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Section 3.3.1 talks about BUM procedures. That is not specific
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> 3.3.1
>> >>>>>>>> though. Perhaps extract that out to a separate section, and
>> >>>>>>>> remove the BUM text from 3.3.2 as well.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I think it is OK.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>    The E-TREE Extended Community is encoded as an 8-octet value as
>> >>>>>>>>    follows:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>         0                   1                   2
>> >>>>>>>> 3
>> >>>>>>>>         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
>> >>>>>>>> 8 9
>> >>>>>>>> 0 1
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> >>>>>>>>        | Type=0x06     | Sub-Type=0x04 | Flags(1 Octet)|
>> >>>>>>> |
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> >>>>>>>>        |  Reserved=0   |           Leaf Label
>> >>>>>>> |
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I assume the octect after the flags octet is also reserved=0.
>> >>>>>>>> Better
>> >>>>>>> mark
>> >>>>>>>> it as "Reserved=0".
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Agreed.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> When it is used with Ethernet A-D per ES route, the leaf flag
>> >>>>>>>> SHOULD be set to 0 but ignored by the receiving routers.
>> >>>>>>>> Therefore, why not set
>> >>>>>>> it
>> >>>>>>>> to 1 to be consistent the MAC/IP route case?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Because the flag is used for known unicast traffic and Leaf
>> >>>>>>> label for BUM traffic. We don¹t want to mix the two.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>> Ali
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Thanks.
>> >>>>>>>> Jeffrey
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>>>>>>>> From: BESS [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Thomas
>> >>>>>>>>> Morin
>> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:51 AM
>> >>>>>>>>> To: BESS <[e-mail]>;
>> >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>> >>>>>>>>> Subject: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Working Group,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> This email starts a Working Group Last Call on
>> >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree [1] which is considered mature and
>> >>>>>>>>> ready
>> >>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>> a final working group review.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent
>> >>>>>>>>> version
>> >>>>>>> yet
>> >>>>>>>>> (-03), and send your comments to the list, no later than
>> >>>>>>>>> *February
>> >>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> 2nd* (2016-02-02).
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> This is not only a call for comments on the document, but also
>> >>>>>>>>> a call
>> >>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>> support for its publication.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR
>> >>>>>>>>> that applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree, to ensure that IPR
>> >>>>>>>>> has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs
>> >>>>>>>>> 3979, 4879,
>> >>>>>>> 3669
>> >>>>>>>>> and 5378 for more details).
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of
>> >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree please respond to this email and
>> >>>>>>>>> indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Thomas/Martin
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> [1]
>> >>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> BESS mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>_______________________________________________
>BESS mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess