Re: [bess] Last Call Comment draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04.txt

[Benson Schliesser <[e-mail]>]

In addition to Adrian's comment, I'm confused by a number of things in 
draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04. Just picking on the big ones:

First, I think there might be a mistake in the XML examples and/or XSD. 
The schema in section 11 defines a target namespace of 
http://www.ietf.org/bgp-l3vpn-unicast.xsd but the examples use 
http://ietf.org/protocol/bgpvpn.

Second, the document doesn't seem to provide adequate operational 
guidance on how to determine the route server JID, how to determine the 
correct pubsub node values, etc. I assume that the server JID is a 
configurable option. And I assume that the pubsub node is equivalent to 
the 128 octet VPN ID. But neither seems to be spelled out clearly 
(unless I'm overlooking it) and in any case there don't seem to be any 
discussions of error handling. (In fact, the only comment I can find on 
the 'node' value suggests vaguely that perhaps all values are implicitly 
correct, in which case there needs to be some additional text about 
troubleshooting.)

Third, the schema offers three different encap types including GRE, UDP, 
and VXLAN. I believe that the GRE and UDP options are meant to be MPLS 
in {GRE, UDP} in which cases I think the 'label' element provides 
adequate information for the encapsulation. However I can't find text 
about how to construct the VXLAN encapsulation. Is it also MPLS over 
VXLAN, or is the label supposed to map to the VNI? In either case I 
suspect that you need a reference to something that defines the VXLAN 
usage of link layer addresses, or the use of the GPE extensions, etc.

Perhaps I'm overlooking something in the text, or (even more likely) 
maybe I'm just too ignorant of XMPP standards etc. If that's the case 
then I hope the authors will help me understand.

Otherwise, I'm not sure that this draft is ready for Proposed Standard 
publication. I suspect that it may need further review and development 
in BESS.

Cheers,
-Benson


> Adrian Farrel <mailto:[e-mail]>
> November 24, 2014 at 2:27 PM
> This document contains a worked example using IP addresses from the 
> 10/8 and
> 192.168/16 Private Use spaces.
>
> It would be far better if the document used addresses from the three
> documentation/test spaces 192.0.2/24 198.51.100/24 and 203.0.113/24
>
> Unless you can provide a strong reason not to make this change (which 
> looks to
> me like it would be a simple matter), please do so in a new revision 
> after IETF
> last call.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>