Re: [bess] Last Call: <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-06.txt> (Framework for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility) to Proposed Standard

"Satya Mohanty (satyamoh)" <satyamoh@cisco.com> Fri, 07 December 2018 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <satyamoh@cisco.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 10DA3130EE5 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:09:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 rVxf3l7LXHr8 for <bess@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:09:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75A6A130EDF for <bess@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:09:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4164; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1544202556; x=1545412156; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=44J1rA2JWlQySY0TseAkKHizCHdPY0d4lV0QO/7y8wM=; b=YeLNgPPOXWLrCKGj8aFo3LLIihmYvmYI63zZKnWZLW0HYqkuZwc5NOiA LL69Tfo9KYaTvqofjW6PXfpad+pOqetEDSwTbZGirHy6Kl1uLY/oX7B/6 kb74kCbw37Y9ZjJLFazoFIkX3qGYsnF7bZy+wb/bwK8lUGCPFnuyuOUs9 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AEAADepwpc/5xdJa1jDgwBAQEBAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBBwIBAQEBgVEFAQEBAQsBggNmgQInCoNwiBmMEYINl0+BegsBARgLhEk?= =?us-ascii?q?CF4MEIjQJDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhT0BAQMBAQEhBA06GwIBCBoCHwcCAgIlCxU?= =?us-ascii?q?QAgQBEoMhAYF5CA+lX3wziikFgQuLFxeBQD+BEScfgkyDHgEBgUsWgwQxgiY?= =?us-ascii?q?CoGcJApFJGJE4iRCPZAIRFIEnHziBVXAVOyoBgkGCUIhMhQQ7QTGKTYEfAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,326,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="209240686"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Dec 2018 17:09:15 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wB7H9EIP014843 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Dec 2018 17:09:15 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-012.cisco.com (64.101.220.152) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 12:09:14 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-012.cisco.com ([64.101.220.152]) by XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com ([64.101.220.152]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Fri, 7 Dec 2018 12:09:14 -0500
From: "Satya Mohanty (satyamoh)" <satyamoh@cisco.com>
To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] Last Call: <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-06.txt> (Framework for EVPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHUjDWE9HH6XL5Ew0utJQxjUcOas6VzUhkAgAACWIA=
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 17:09:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CAA5BD0C-1CBD-49F1-B61F-B05B430754E7@cisco.com>
References: <154397142840.4620.1360654856007304944.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+-tSzwdxwGTB99kozVhN-fb8EuxvD7d_i5t_c9b+y4Ee1dmyw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+-tSzwdxwGTB99kozVhN-fb8EuxvD7d_i5t_c9b+y4Ee1dmyw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.47.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <F9C7BC3AD5764842800910D6851C08BE@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.151, xch-rtp-011.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/z9KmB2wh0KhjhQhZtkxEO6hcyvM>
Subject: Re: [bess] Last Call: <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-06.txt> (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 <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: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 17:09:18 -0000

Hi Anoop,

Thank you very much for your editorial comments and review.
We will take care of it.

Best,
--Satya


On 12/7/18, 1:01 AM, "BESS on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani" <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of anoop@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:

    I have reviewed the doc and I have mostly editorial comments.
    
    Thanks,
    Anoop
    
    ==
    
    Throughout
    
    VLAN Bundle, VLAN bundle, VLAN-Bundle, VLAN-bundle -- make consistent
    VLAN Aware Bundle, VLAN-aware bundle, VLAN-Aware Bundle -- make consistent
    bridge table, Bridge Table -- make consistent (also add definition to
    terminology section)
    DF election, DF Election -- make consistent
    Default DF Election, default DF Election -- make consistent
    non-DF -> NDF
    
    Section 1
    
    double Q-in-Q tags -> Q-in-Q tags
    
    double is redundant
    
    Section 2.1
    
    Fig 1 is a bit confusing.  If the idea of the rectangle is to show a
    core, then why have connections between PE1 and PE2, PE3, but not
    between PE1 and PE4?
    
    Change
    >>>
    Layer-2 devices are particularly susceptible to forwarding loops
    because of the broadcast nature of the Ethernet traffic.
    >>>
    to
    The effect of forwarding loops in a Layer-2 network is particularly
    severe because of the broadcast nature of Ethernet traffic and the
    lack of a TTL.
    
    Section 2.2.1
    
    a v4 or v6 peering -> an IPv4 or IPv6 peering
    
    >>>
    >From a forwarding perspective, this is
    a churn, as it results in re-programming the PE ports as either
    blocking or non-blocking at potentially all PEs when the DF changes.
    >>>
    
    Why would the reprogramming change at all PEs?  It should change for
    at most 2 PEs for each (ES,EVI) being reprogrammed.  Maybe authors
    were trying to convey something else?
    
    
    Section 2.3
    
    >>>
    DF Election procedure Generally
    >>>
    Missing a period.
    
    
    Section 3
    
    specification in EVPN -> EVPN specification
    
    
    Section 3.1
    
    DF WAIT, DF_WAIT -- make consistent
    DF Wait timer -- where is this defined?
    Ethernet Segment Route -> Ethernet Segment route
    stop DF timer ->  stop DF wait timer (?)
    start DF timer -> start DF wait timer (?)
    
    Section 4
    
    rather than the state of the server states -> rather than the state of
    the server (?)
    
    Section 4.2
    
    Si is the IP address of server i -> Si is the IP address of PE i
    operator chooses so -> operator so chooses
    Note 0 <= i,j <= Number of PEs -- should this be "< Number of PEs"?
    Weight(V, Es, Sk) -> Weight(v, Es, Sk)
    Pseudo-random -> pseudo-random
    efficient deterministic -> efficient and deterministic
    V4 -> IPv4
    V6 -> IPv6
    
    _______________________________________________
    BESS mailing list
    BESS@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess