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

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

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