Re: [bess] EVPN VPWS BDF forwarding behavior at MH site

"UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com> Mon, 12 August 2019 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ju1738@att.com>
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 64C86120AC4 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 0SR3zvfNNR1A for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6761E12163D for <bess@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 06:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049297.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7CD8P5o019221; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:15:41 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2ub6waa7dr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:15:40 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x7CDFboL000590; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:15:38 -0400
Received: from zlp27127.vci.att.com (zlp27127.vci.att.com [135.66.87.31]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x7CDFUXG000425 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:15:30 -0400
Received: from zlp27127.vci.att.com (zlp27127.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27127.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 35A2F4009E94; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:15:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.9.129.148]) by zlp27127.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 1D96F4009E64; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:15:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRCD.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.4.104]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.148]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:15:29 -0400
From: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1738@att.com>
To: gangadhara reddy chavva <meetgangadhara@gmail.com>, "Thirumavalavan Periyannan (thiperiy)" <thiperiy@cisco.com>
CC: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] EVPN VPWS BDF forwarding behavior at MH site
Thread-Index: AQHVTrczg9WvBX+ulkeIckk9/n1oDKbzli8AgADtGwCAAv8YgA==
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:15:28 +0000
Message-ID: <B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550F4D898198@MISOUT7MSGUSRCD.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <CAAG_SC_gizf5nRVGOL1XJ4nSHg_7RwP92wcgjqi9MCTMMiUA7A@mail.gmail.com> <3A8DD12F-E9CF-4B91-8B28-05344A82E752@cisco.com> <CAAG_SC8HrpfcvNM-jpbPb2TYsgUvuyc=9FboQJ8MsE7tVVQihg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAG_SC8HrpfcvNM-jpbPb2TYsgUvuyc=9FboQJ8MsE7tVVQihg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.65.141.41]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B17A6910EEDD1F45980687268941550F4D898198MISOUT7MSGUSRCD_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-08-12_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908120148
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/tK-gkVxhfCAAlfG9WPQjSZ58Zc4>
Subject: Re: [bess] EVPN VPWS BDF forwarding behavior at MH site
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 21:51:28 -0000

I assume this discussion applies to FXC ( Flexible Cross Connect )..

Thanks,
              Jim Uttaro

From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of gangadhara reddy chavva
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 7:29 AM
To: Thirumavalavan Periyannan (thiperiy) <thiperiy@cisco.com>
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] EVPN VPWS BDF forwarding behavior at MH site

Hi Thiru,

here is the clarifications for your questions.

this is basically primary PE reach ability /  availability can be determined through BFD/Multihop BFD, in this case FRR switch can happen very quickly at the remote PE, control plane convergence later.

please see in line answers for the below questions:
for faster convergence if we can install the route such that BDF can allow the traffic from remote PE towards to multi homed segment, we can forward the traffic received from the remote PE.

Gangadhar >> this explains the route programming at multi homed site, if elected PE is BDF, program the label path, so that traffic received from remote PE will be send to multi homed CE.

at the same time we shouldn't allow the traffic from multi homed site this leads to duplicate traffic on the remote PE. to achieve this we should not program the path from multi home site towards remote PE until this PE elected as DF for that VPWS instance.

Gangadhar >> again this is at BDF, we shouldn't allow the traffic from multi homed site CE to remote PE, for this BDF should not program the path towards remote PE, so at BDF if there is any traffic from CE will be get  dropped at BDF.


I hope this will clarify your question.

Regards,
Gangadhar



On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 2:50 AM Thirumavalavan Periyannan (thiperiy) <thiperiy@cisco.com<mailto:thiperiy@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hello Gangadhara,

How remote PE detect the DF failure? It’s based on EVI/AD Withdraw message from DF PE if so then NDF PE also received this route and changed its DF status at the same time Remote PE changed its nexthop to NEW DF PE.

The below info is not clear, could you please help me to understand.

for faster convergence if we can install the route such that BDF can allow the traffic from remote PE towards to multi homed segment, we can forward the traffic received from the remote PE.

at the same time we shouldn't allow the traffic from multi homed site this leads to duplicate traffic on the remote PE. to achieve this we should not program the path from multi home site towards remote PE until this PE elected as DF for that VPWS instance.

Thanks,
Thiru

On 09-Aug-2019, at 19:02, gangadhara reddy chavva <meetgangadhara@gmail.com<mailto:meetgangadhara@gmail.com>> wrote:
HI All,

i have one question on EVPN VPWS BDF forwarding behavior at MH site.
when PE is selected as BDF, it will communicate the EAD EVI route with B bit set to remote PE. so remote PE will install the FRR route with primary path towards DF PE and secondary path towards BDF.
when ever primary path get disconnected it will switch the path to secondary path quickly at remote PE. because of this data from the remote PE will reach to BDF very quickly, but if BDF is not programmed its path towards multi homed segment then traffic will be get dropped until control plane convergence and it will be elected as DF.

for faster convergence if we can install the route such that BDF can allow the traffic from remote PE towards to multi homed segment, we can forward the traffic received from the remote PE.

at the same time we shouldn't allow the traffic from multi homed site this leads to duplicate traffic on the remote PE. to achieve this we should not program the path from multi home site towards remote PE until this PE elected as DF for that VPWS instance.

can you please let me know if there are any problems with this kind of approach..

<image.png>

Regards,
Gangadhar






_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bess&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=s7ZzB4JbPv3nYuoSx5Gy8Q&m=dw_cbEJEFGb2ttG_aLztLllgQ6WbTf5f6YdWdNY3Sgo&s=VYEDWxQx9AA9mJMDxJ8_BoKV0xANI0ORk2zfcb3cfF4&e=>