Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with Ingress Replication

Hi Don,

On 12/15/17, 7:35 AM, "BESS on behalf of Fedyk, Don" <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of don.fedyk@hpe.com> wrote:

    Hi Thomas

    I'm good with the interpretation of RFC7432 and RFC6514 in this area as I said.  But at least one implementation got it wrong.   

    You Wrote: 
    That is, unless we  explicitly identify an ambiguous piece of text.

    I think section  9. Support for Multicast could use a slight rewording.  Perhaps citing  RFC7432 as well.  
    I know I read this part several times.  The draft specifies a Multicast tunnel with attribute Ingress replication that you don't use for multicast traffic.

Ali> You have completely misinterpreted this paragraph. This paragraph talks about the originator of the route is the same as the PE who sources the traffic for such multicast tunnels (except for ingress replication where the originator of the route is the receiver of the traffic!!). 

Cheers,
Ali 

    >>>>>
       For example,
       the PMSI Tunnel attribute may indicate the multicast tunnel is of
       type PIM-SM; whereas, the BGP Encapsulation extended community may
       indicate the encapsulation for that tunnel is of type VxLAN. The
       following tunnel types as defined in [RFC6514] can be used in the
       PMSI tunnel attribute for VXLAN/NVGRE:

             + 3 - PIM-SSM Tree
             + 4 - PIM-SM Tree
             + 5 - BIDIR-PIM Tree
             + 6 - Ingress Replication

       Except for Ingress Replication, this multicast tunnel is used by the
       PE originating the route for sending multicast traffic to other PEs,
       and is used by PEs that receive this route for receiving the traffic
       originated by hosts connected to the PE that originated the route.
    <<<<<

    Cheers
    Don 

    -----Original Message-----
    From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] 
    Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:52 AM
    To: EXT - thomas.morin@orange.com <thomas.morin@orange.com>; Fedyk, Don <don.fedyk@hpe.com>; Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it>
    Cc: bess@ietf.org
    Subject: RE: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with Ingress Replication

    Thomas,

    I completely agree w/ your email, below.

    Yours Irrespectively,

    John

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin
    > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 5:42 AM
    > To: Fedyk, Don <don.fedyk@hpe.com>; Marco Marzetti <marco@lamehost.it>
    > Cc: bess@ietf.org
    > Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with Ingress 
    > Replication
    > 
    > Hi Don,
    > 
    > Fedyk, Don, 2017-12-14 20:33:
    > > I think the gray area is that this draft talks about BUM traffic and 
    > > ingress replication and then has a section on Multicast tunnels 
    > > which excludes ingress replication traffic from the tunnels.
    > 
    > No, ingress replication is not excluded at all:
    > 
    >    The following tunnel types as defined in [RFC6514] can be used in
    >    the PMSI tunnel attribute for VXLAN/NVGRE:
    > 
    >          + 3 - PIM-SSM Tree
    >          + 4 - PIM-SM Tree
    >          + 5 - BIDIR-PIM Tree
    >          + 6 - Ingress Replication
    > 
    > > If you are using point to point VXLAN/NVGRE  tunnels then ingress 
    > > replication is default [...]
    > 
    > This formulation surprises me: that some implementations behave as you 
    > describe is possibly true (this seems to be the case of the 
    > implementation that triggered this discussion), but I don't know about 
    > any text in the specs we are discussing that would imply such a 'default'.
    > 
    > You might have implementations that in the absence of any local 
    > configuration for an EVPN instance on which type of tunnel to use for 
    > BUM, will default to ingress replication: this is fine, out of the 
    > scope of what is specified for interop, and not breaking other 
    > implementations (as long, of course, that what is chosen locally is 
    > then advertised as expected in a PMSI Tunnel Attribute).
    > 
    > 
    > > but IMET is being used to identify the NVE IP.    I read RFC7432 and
    > > RFC6514 in this area and thought that the PMSI attribute MUST be set 
    > > when there is an Inclusive Multicast Ethernet tag IMET.
    > 
    > Yes!  (the text of RFC7432 quoted by Ali reminds us that)
    > 
    > 
    > > I can see two possible fixes:
    > > -          Specify that the PMSI attribute MUST be set if there is an
    > > IMET route and specify correct attribute.
    > 
    > Given the content of RFC7432 and the fact that this is a normative ref 
    > of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay, I think that we don't need to repeat 
    > this MUST in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay.  That is, unless we 
    > explicitly identify an ambiguous piece of text.
    > 
    > > -          Allow that ingress replication is default when PMSI is
    > > absent but accept PMSI that specifies ingress replication.
    > >
    > 
    > I don't think we should do that. It would overnight make non-compliant 
    > pre- standard implementation of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay, without 
    > a rationale to do so except coping with an implementation that assumed a bit too much.
    > 
    > Best,
    > 
    > -Thomas
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > > From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marco 
    > > Marzetti
    > > Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 9:21 AM
    > > To: Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange.com>
    > > Cc: bess@ietf.org
    > > Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 PMSI with 
    > > Ingress Replication
    > >
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > I have encountered an implementation that is not attaching any PMSI 
    > > to the IMET.
    > > The authors think they don't really need it because they only 
    > > support Ingress Replication.
    > > Such behavior breaks interoperability with other implementations 
    > > that are dropping the NLRI if PMSI is not attached.
    > >
    > > So i looked at draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 and noticed that 
    > > there's no clear indication of what the proper behavior is.
    > > As said i assumed i had to look at RFC7432 and RFC6514 (and i did 
    > > it), but i wasn't 100% sure and i preferred to ask.
    > >
    > > Onestly you already made my day by confirming what i thought.
    > > My suggestion was to make things more clear, but i admit that it 
    > > could look redundant.
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Morin
    > <thomas.morin@orange.co
    > > m> wrote:
    > > > Hi Marco,
    > > >
    > > > Marco Marzetti, 2017-12-14 12:25:
    > > > > I am writing this email asking you to clarify what's the
    > > > suggested
    > > > > behavior when PMSI Tunnel Type is set to "Ingress Replication"
    > > > (type
    > > > > 6) as draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-10 only suggests what to do
    > > > with
    > > > > multicast tunnel trees.
    > > > >
    > > > > I think the originating PE should conform with RFC6514 and
    > > > RFC7432
    > > > > (from which you've taken inspiration) and always (RFC2119 MUST) 
    > > > > attach PMSI Tunnel attribute with the Tunnel Type set to Ingress 
    > > > > Replication and Tunnel Identifier set to a routable address of
    > > > the PE
    > > > > itself (more specifically NVE's IP address).
    > > > >
    > > > > Is that correct?
    > > > > In that case i suggest to add the following line at the end of 
    > > > > Section 9.
    > > > > """
    > > > > For Ingress Replication the PE should follow what's stated in
    > > > RFC6514
    > > > > Section 5 .
    > > > > """
    > > >
    > > > The text of section 9 lists "Ingress Replication" in the list of 
    > > > tunnel types that can be used. My understanding is that, in the 
    > > > absence of anything being specifically said for Ingress 
    > > > Replication, an implementation should follow what is said in RFC7432 and RFC6514.
    > > > (What
    > > > other specs could it follow to implement this supported type ?
    > > > RFC7432
    > > > and RFC6514 are more than an inspiration here, these are specs 
    > > > that the document refers to explicitly)
    > > >
    > > > So I'm not sure that it is useful or needed to add text.
    > > >
    > > > Can you perhaps expand on why the current text would possibly be 
    > > > ambiguous, misleading or incomplete...?
    > > >
    > > > -Thomas
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Marco
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > BESS mailing list
    > BESS@ietf.org
    > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
    > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bess&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Sc
    > bfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-
    > s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=tHiUTn9_QXrhs3cw-
    > Dn9_qwR3VK2xWv72DcpoOfR_SI&s=VxylPoVhzXC58hBsqToxzhUK6-3kfy-
    > ktUi7A9KZDcs&e=

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