Re: [bmwg] [bess] REG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/

[Sudhin Jacob <[e-mail]>]

Hi Luc,

I addressed your comments. Kindly find the latest draft.

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-03.txt

Regards,
Sudhin



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Sudhin Jacob
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 9:23 AM
To: Luc André Burdet <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [bess] REG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/

Hi Luc,

Kindly find the answers inline. Appreciate your comments.

Regards,
Sudhin



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Luc André Burdet <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 8:46 PM
To: Sudhin Jacob <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [bess] REG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/

Thanks for the head's up Sudhin.

I got as far as the TOC and associated document flow. I would suggest this needs work before WGLC.
A few suggestions based on cursory reading.



  1.  Section 2, Test topologies   (Nit: plural since you define 3...)

Sudhin>>>>>>>>>  We will change it.

  *   Looks like you are defining only Single-Active?    (Nit:SHPE3 appears twice in its/box)

Sudhin>>>>>>>>>>> we will remove it.

  *   You have only Figure1 and there are 3 topologies in there. Why not define 3 figures, one per topology ?

Sudhin>>>>>>>>> Sure will make it 3 figures and 3 topologies.

  *   The paging makes this section hard to read. Consider shrinking your diagrams.

Sudhin>>>>>>>>  Sure

  *   In fact, these are all the SAME Topology. All you are changing is the traffic pattern. Putting the details of traffic flow "per topology" and especially hiding those details in a one-liner behind "Traffic Generator" is not clear & concise.

Sudhin>>> Traffic generator in the context means either IXIA or Spirent, we cant name one. We have to follow a generic naming pattern.

  *   I would suggest:
     *   1 Figure detailing the physical network diagram defining node names, DUT, etc. ;
     *   A section defining "Test Topologies" overlayed onto that shared network diagram:

Sudhin>>>> Sure we noted this point.


        *   Nit: by "different VLANs" do you mean "Multiple" here or that CE and SHPE3 have different VLANS from one another?)

Sudhin>>>>>> yes multiple vlans. We will address as multiple vlans.

        *   All-Active,  traffic SHPE3 -> CE direction
        *   All-Active,  traffic CE -> SHPE3 direction
        *   All-Active,  traffic SHPE3 <-> CE bidirectional
        *   Single-Active,  traffic SHPE3 -> CE direction
        *   Single-Active,  traffic CE -> SHPE3 direction
        *   Single-Active,  traffic SHPE3 <-> CE bidirectional
     *   That could fit nicely in a Table...

Sudhin>>>> thanks for the comment. Sure will address this in table format under topologies section.


  1.  Repeating "How long it takes to learn" is redundant and makes the TOC needlessly unreadable.
This is a benchmarking draft, isn't timing and timing-verification implied?
Sudhin>>>>>>>> Measuring the duration for learning the macs. You are correct, it is the timing measurement.

If you MUST then just add a simple section/sentence at the top of document specifying that and do away with the repetition and long titles

Sudhin>>>>> we will address it in the next version.


  1.  You have PBB-EVPN in titles that basically repeat the previous one (presumably for EVPN?)
Maybe just have one section, and unnumbered subsections for EVPN and PBB-EVPN ?
or better yet: Section 3 EVPN, Section 4 PBB-EVPN and repeat same TCs concisely per technology. Context switching as one reads through the document hinders readability and flow.

Sudhin>>>>>>>>> Sure


   3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf..org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dbmwg-2Devpntest-2D02-23section-2D3&d=DwMF-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=6467957JFOdmNjfKujkufIeAE-AdkLRewB-QhIU_Srw&m=KEdAQSnRSS33yC4oLGFN_oPFqpDbbKcDu7Mfvvk-DjI&s=NKvru-PiLhvvEAuqtcnC7TMWxb6UCSx-orKOo4qMAH4&e=>.  EVPN Test Cases

     3.1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dbmwg-2Devpntest-2D02-23section-2D3.1&d=DwMF-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=6467957JFOdmNjfKujkufIeAE-AdkLRewB-QhIU_Srw&m=KEdAQSnRSS33yC4oLGFN_oPFqpDbbKcDu7Mfvvk-DjI&s=2NavS2cWAMnbCRNGfoOuY-NgQIw81CusOZyFmcHCWs4&e=>.  Local MAC learning

     3.2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dbmwg-2Devpntest-2D02-23section-2D3.3&d=DwMF-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=6467957JFOdmNjfKujkufIeAE-AdkLRewB-QhIU_Srw&m=KEdAQSnRSS33yC4oLGFN_oPFqpDbbKcDu7Mfvvk-DjI&s=1FWoMqMdKZszJzPU9kXBGNITrTAsbf8wY35AhfaZ1Yw&e=>.  Remote MAC learning

     3.3.  Local MAC Flush, due to PE-CE link flap

        3.3.1 MAC Re-learning rate

     3.4.  Remote MAC Flush, due to remote link failure

   4<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf..org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dbmwg-2Devpntest-2D02-23section-2D3&d=DwMF-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=6467957JFOdmNjfKujkufIeAE-AdkLRewB-QhIU_Srw&m=KEdAQSnRSS33yC4oLGFN_oPFqpDbbKcDu7Mfvvk-DjI&s=NKvru-PiLhvvEAuqtcnC7TMWxb6UCSx-orKOo4qMAH4&e=>.  PBB-EVPN Test Cases

     4.1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dbmwg-2Devpntest-2D02-23section-2D3.1&d=DwMF-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=6467957JFOdmNjfKujkufIeAE-AdkLRewB-QhIU_Srw&m=KEdAQSnRSS33yC4oLGFN_oPFqpDbbKcDu7Mfvvk-DjI&s=2NavS2cWAMnbCRNGfoOuY-NgQIw81CusOZyFmcHCWs4&e=>.  Local MAC learning

     4.2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dbmwg-2Devpntest-2D02-23section-2D3.3&d=DwMF-g&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=6467957JFOdmNjfKujkufIeAE-AdkLRewB-QhIU_Srw&m=KEdAQSnRSS33yC4oLGFN_oPFqpDbbKcDu7Mfvvk-DjI&s=1FWoMqMdKZszJzPU9kXBGNITrTAsbf8wY35AhfaZ1Yw&e=>.  Remote MAC learning

     4.3.  Local MAC Flush, due to PE-CE link flap

        4.3.1 MAC Re-learning rate

     4.4.  Remote MAC Flush, due to remote link failure



Regards,
Luc André

Luc André Burdet |  Cisco  |  [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>  |  Tel: [phone]


From: BESS <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Sudhin Jacob <sjacob=[e-mail]<mailto:sjacob=[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 02:01
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "bmwg@ietf..org<mailto:bmwg@ietf..org>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [bess] REG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/

Hi All,

Our draft is going to be WGLC in BMWG workgroup. Could you please let us know any comments.

Regards,
Sudhin

Juniper Business Use Only