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

["Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> BESS mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________________________________________________
>>>_
>>>_
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>>>confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>>pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
>>>recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>>a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
>>>electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>>Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
>>>ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>
>>>This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
>>>information that may be protected by law;
>>>they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>>>If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
>>>delete this message and its attachments.
>>>As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
>>>been modified, changed or falsified.
>>>Thank you.
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>BESS mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>