Return-Path: 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 7A2A4131104 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:32:49 -0800 (PST) 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 WhjCYruNc7jT for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:32:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (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 485B5130EED for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:32:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v6so2631223oif.2 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:32:47 -0800 (PST) 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; bh=kS2myW+QAzuarFfM4Brh3KwzJ4YpwzXszqJfe4N1ZpE=; b=KkCLq6DXJfAubkAdQ5qE8FPzGfRWDMPkujCnA2oniWF7KDXcIQlpnc9Rcs8vlKxoMp ZSXkIRF0EwiJGNHWWuUPCK0bpGaw3U1nS2RnmQYJBMdpqaen//Y2j9+qnqBAnewN+ftM P+TfFWuU09m0TczsvzFR1cgWy8cUv0vC7FTo8wTVixPLdj9oAeyG/qPisqv8nX9Mt5sW EXVjexCmu6nXpMYNYjHl7DUpj510yJ16uuR2Wjy0btPS6UNXPWdXyvLtIc0VRExEk329 hutKaGgG+hrT9oQiCmLHjpUdC40oaYazV90u6D278CPzxgGaRR7xWXpGpf9G0Dq0o2JC sEnQ== 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; bh=kS2myW+QAzuarFfM4Brh3KwzJ4YpwzXszqJfe4N1ZpE=; b=JPC08czS7bNN33BLsDU6a/HavnWwvNnDLAKzevvInTVeNRmZRwmz5duXyLfwSiqDRV vkxaCcg8Cr1u/oSkPFVeKpz6KkEckexYKTXs8ekCo7BBpewmsbFBuaw/vFwduE2ASaJx 1BG9OILkeYcOQtHgMHyl2HZu1us8avhtQJCV5W4iSN6IQ0WkDsYSNxQVk+1i0e7wpSN3 1uhhE0q3lNEIVxYtlscTSFvFVb20qV8g62O7WQvloAOquy0g3sqDUPjjVcmNVvGkF1BJ 4mbJPOVKW06ASV7BdL8+y2u6C3+3/LDCj58P48uCkTP0sNWoOpPpGIHKM/ri5YLNaXNj GO/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWavhU8f/djUoLSnEjlwAvMHVp+nn+Au5T8exZxC4ONp8CNGeQ3q 4uXgP+vM8k9A7RZZ4o6vNSX0qwwn2n75GaqeAHU0Gr4r X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WVVsuKdBO5KWOS64v0i5BxhwunjyENynpCa/RdRBBYjzy5Zch0WsiGzNWM30klp9I4Nv3OGKneiv90RKKYzPo= X-Received: by 2002:aca:dc88:: with SMTP id t130mr7838532oig.329.1545154366386; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:32:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154397142840.4620.1360654856007304944.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <154397142840.4620.1360654856007304944.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Neeraj Malhotra Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:32:33 -0800 Message-ID: To: bess@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000021b61f057d4f4914" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [bess] Last Call: (Framework for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org 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: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:32:50 -0000 --00000000000021b61f057d4f4914 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, Very solid and understandable. Couple of minor comments [NM]: Section 2.1: Layer-2 devices are particularly susceptible to forwarding loops because of the broadcast nature of the Ethernet traffic. [NM]: better to refer to "Layer-2 services" instead of "Layer-2 devices" as the CE or PE devices themselves may be layer-3 capable. Section 4.2: Note that while the DF election algorithm in [RFC7432] uses PE address and vlan as inputs, this document uses Ethernet Tag, PE address and ESI as inputs. [NM]: I think the text in this context uses "vlan" and "Ethernet Tag" interchangeably. Since the above is trying to emphasize the use of "ESI" in this document as the key differentiation, clearer to have other two variables (vlan and PE address) read the same, or else it makes you wonder if there is a difference between vlan and ethernet tag in this context. Thanks, Neeraj On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:59 PM The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to > consider the following document: - 'Framework for EVPN Designated Forwarder > Election Extensibility' > as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-12-18. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of > the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > The Designated Forwarder (DF) in EVPN networks is the Provider Edge > (PE) router responsible for sending broadcast, unknown unicast and > multicast (BUM) traffic to a multi-homed Customer Equipment (CE) > device, on a given VLAN on a particular Ethernet Segment (ES). The DF > is selected out of a list of candidate PEs that advertise the same > Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) to the EVPN network. By default, > EVPN uses a DF Election algorithm referred to as "Service Carving" > and it is based on a modulus function (V mod N) that takes the number > of PEs in the ES (N) and the VLAN value (V) as input. This default DF > Election algorithm has some inefficiencies that this document > addresses by defining a new DF Election algorithm and a capability to > influence the DF Election result for a VLAN, depending on the state > of the associated Attachment Circuit (AC). In addition, this document > creates a registry with IANA, for future DF Election Algorithms and > Capabilities. It also presents a formal definition and clarification > of the DF Election Finite State Machine. > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > --00000000000021b61f057d4f4914 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,
<= /div>
Very solid and understandable. Couple of minor=
 comments [NM]:
Sect=
ion 2.1: Layer-2 devices are particul=
arly susceptible to forwarding loops because of the broadcast nature of the=
 Ethernet traffic.
<=
font face=3D"arial, helvetica, sans-serif">[NM]: better to refer to "L=
ayer-2 services" instead of "Layer-2 devices" as the CE or P=
E devices themselves may be layer-3 capable.
Section 4.2: Note that while the DF election algorithm in [RFC74=
32] uses PE=C2=A0<=
/span>address and vlan as=
 inputs, this document uses Ethernet Tag, PE=C2=A0address and ESI as inputs.
[NM]: =
I think the text in this context uses "vlan" and "Ethernet T=
ag" interchangeably. Since the above is trying to emphasize the use of=
 "ESI" in this document as the key differentiation, clearer to ha=
ve other two variables (vlan and PE address) read the same, or else it make=
s you wonder if there is a difference between vlan and ethernet tag in this=
 context.
Thanks,
Neeraj

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:59 PM The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:=

The IESG has received a request from the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG (bess) to<= br> consider the following document: - 'Framework for EVPN Designated Forwa= rder
Election Extensibility'
=C2=A0 <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-06.txt> as Propose= d Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final=
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailin= g lists by 2018-12-18. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


=C2=A0 =C2=A0The Designated Forwarder (DF) in EVPN networks is the Provider= Edge
=C2=A0 =C2=A0(PE) router responsible for sending broadcast, unknown unicast= and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0multicast (BUM) traffic to a multi-homed Customer Equipment (C= E)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0device, on a given VLAN on a particular Ethernet Segment (ES).= The DF
=C2=A0 =C2=A0is selected out of a list of candidate PEs that advertise the = same
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) to the EVPN network. By defa= ult,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0EVPN uses a DF Election algorithm referred to as "Service= Carving"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0and it is based on a modulus function (V mod N) that takes the= number
=C2=A0 =C2=A0of PEs in the ES (N) and the VLAN value (V) as input. This def= ault DF
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Election algorithm has some inefficiencies that this document<= br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0addresses by defining a new DF Election algorithm and a capabi= lity to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0influence the DF Election result for a VLAN, depending on the = state
=C2=A0 =C2=A0of the associated Attachment Circuit (AC). In addition, this d= ocument
=C2=A0 =C2=A0creates a registry with IANA, for future DF Election Algorithm= s and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0Capabilities. It also presents a formal definition and clarifi= cation
=C2=A0 =C2=A0of the DF Election Finite State Machine.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf= .org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatrack= er.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
--00000000000021b61f057d4f4914--