Re: [bmwg] draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn

Sudhin Jacob <sjacob@juniper.net> Mon, 28 November 2016 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <sjacob@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F02129680; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 19:43:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.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 ZymuayGPkEhx; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 19:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0096.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D56612967A; Sun, 27 Nov 2016 19:43:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=guxJdqxVApU3kMAv17WvvP62aX7Yth9c5lv01hSsni4=; b=TTUsv+HuTi0QNnCNuyLSZBclhZkelKZ9gz60prVs183XO12LzBBOveTpRgrAEmu7IcRNumKY06P0o4h7EFvxA73g21PK2ew8mEY9SkklI2k6BsKHOO/P2Pz8T3knW0eNKLSohiwt4FPuIjz5LNQxmN/RW9sIYjM2e8eTsX/Yhsk=
Received: from BN6PR05MB2963.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.173.18.148) by SN2PR05MB2493.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.166.213.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.747.5; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 03:43:23 +0000
Received: from BN6PR05MB2963.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.18.148]) by BN6PR05MB2963.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.18.148]) with mapi id 15.01.0721.004; Mon, 28 Nov 2016 03:43:21 +0000
From: Sudhin Jacob <sjacob@juniper.net>
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, Iftekhar Hussain <IHussain@infinera.com>
Thread-Topic: draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn
Thread-Index: AdJDfhFrtGAP4zLnT26pR2oHjAjcQwAANPKgAAhFZPAAdZE+IAAQP1mAACW0nYAAts5WgA==
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 03:43:21 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR05MB2963F2C106A4CD9B01477BB7C28A0@BN6PR05MB2963.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <2952f102dbc64b97aaf487a01b1ff586@sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com> <BN6PR05MB29630E3853D6681D215CFCE4C2B70@BN6PR05MB2963.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <1cb547168eba4edaa75a36014472001e@sv-ex13-prd1.infinera.com> <C9FCD52F-8BF4-4B28-BFB3-32F8D20302C7@on.nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9FCD52F-8BF4-4B28-BFB3-32F8D20302C7@on.nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=sjacob@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [116.197.184.13]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN2PR05MB2493; 7:k+VStCEoJniiBAq9DoT4lKpZhbLxWc5GcutufckK2r+6ZeU2myiXBmAY9LeexOraF2zJB94n21EWVwn019Ok0tS8QENgqp932Asx4EIb2UOu+sxHXw/WQpHk3Zws8BsoRKL/TgstQhY/Iw0ZD7vPGoKkXQq7zIZTNmneGDmz4easmFdJZ1/bwcfujglTlcr2wyZaRqDmQOpt+CkyQ9nkZGwsYw5UK+CE08NzoUEGLrR6KRsxlJdyXUfW+uz4NIqZH8rDqGG4AhzSMGZs/V2T8uwVNM3CYQT+SkKtWFNRKT00QAn0y+6V5uN1Ty+6YSiqXAs9vAeSgsYClh83AVZwKBTHeVwTPAKyv3D/0JZK11I+doksew3rHAiOaG3ojVGdu4aozwDl+RKA1/GeLWBVsjrG9KM15pSIyKv1vCNNQumqQNWxB6PmcavOEQ5DcQpyuU2mQhCpoIDNZl8poC97jQ==
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:SKI; SCL:-1SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(7916002)(189002)(377454003)(199003)(51444003)(24454002)(51914003)(3660700001)(68736007)(5660300001)(93886004)(7696004)(3900700001)(229853002)(3280700002)(9686002)(230783001)(345774005)(2906002)(5001770100001)(4326007)(77096006)(39380400001)(39400400001)(39410400001)(92566002)(39450400002)(189998001)(8676002)(66066001)(2900100001)(86362001)(97736004)(81156014)(81166006)(6506003)(606004)(33656002)(8936002)(106356001)(2950100002)(54356999)(50986999)(76176999)(101416001)(105586002)(76576001)(790700001)(102836003)(6116002)(3846002)(7736002)(99286002)(122556002)(38730400001)(7906003)(7846002)(74316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:SN2PR05MB2493; H:BN6PR05MB2963.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 063635fa-c46f-4540-8c2a-08d41740b324
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:SN2PR05MB2493;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN2PR05MB2493109E8F97983667E1497DC28A0@SN2PR05MB2493.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(138986009662008)(82608151540597)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6060326)(6045199)(6040361)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6061324)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(20161123562025)(20161123564025)(6072148); SRVR:SN2PR05MB2493; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN2PR05MB2493;
x-forefront-prvs: 01401330D1
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN6PR05MB2963F2C106A4CD9B01477BB7C28A0BN6PR05MB2963namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Nov 2016 03:43:21.4613 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN2PR05MB2493
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/pcVWAX3pRh4v0n_aLs47blBBR-s>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>, Kishore Tiruveedhula <kishoret@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 03:43:28 -0000

Hi Jorge and Iftekhar,

Yes thanks for the input, we have taken in to consideration. Could you please go through the draft and let us know any other additions required that would a great help for us.

Regards,
Sudhin

From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US) [mailto:jorge.rabadan@nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 5:57 PM
To: Iftekhar Hussain <IHussain@infinera.com>; Sudhin Jacob <sjacob@juniper.net>
Cc: Kishore Tiruveedhula <kishoret@juniper.net>; bmwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn

Hi Iftekhar,

Thank you for sharing. I’m not really an author of RFC7432, I just made a bit of contribution…
About this:

·         What is the performance metric for PE-CE load balancing (active-active)? Shouldn’t this be covered in the draft?
Sudhin>>> I think that is a functional parameter, functional parameters are not supported by this workgroup.
[Iftekhar] I am thinking there should be some metric to measure the level of load balancing  between PE-CE and PE-PE. Let us see what other folks have any opinion on this.

I think it does not add much value to measure load-balancing and it is challenging to test it in an objective way – there are many factors involved like the type of flows, hashing algorithms, etc. nothing of that is described in the relevant RFCs.

Thanks.
Jorge



On 11/23/16, 7:39 PM, "Iftekhar Hussain" <IHussain@infinera.com<mailto:IHussain@infinera.com>> wrote:

Hi Sudhin,

Please see my comments in-line. cced bmwg@ietf.org<mailto:bmwg@ietf.org> and Jorge (one of the authors of the RFC7432).


From: Sudhin Jacob [mailto:sjacob@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 2:53 AM
To: Iftekhar Hussain
Cc: Kishore Tiruveedhula
Subject: RE: draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn

Hi Iftekhar,

Let me thank you for the review, Kindly find the updates. May I humbly request if you  have any queries could you please include bmwg@ietf.org<mailto:bmwg@ietf.org> @ CC to capture the comments.

Regards,
Sudhin

From: Sudhin Jacob
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 8:09 AM
To: 'Iftekhar Hussain' <IHussain@infinera.com<mailto:IHussain@infinera.com>>
Cc: Kishore Tiruveedhula <kishoret@juniper.net<mailto:kishoret@juniper.net>>
Subject: RE: draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn

Hi Iftekhar,

Let me thank you for the comment, now the 2 drafts are combined to one as per the community request, now onwards PBB-EVPN and EVPN will be covered in the below draft.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kishjac-bmwg-evpntest/

I will get back.

Regards,
Sudhin

From: Iftekhar Hussain [mailto:IHussain@infinera.com]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 4:11 AM
To: Sudhin Jacob <sjacob@juniper.net<mailto:sjacob@juniper.net>>; Kishore Tiruveedhula <kishoret@juniper.net<mailto:kishoret@juniper.net>>
Subject: RE: draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn

Resend. Earlier messed failed to some MS office issues.

From: Iftekhar Hussain
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 2:38 PM
To: 'draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn@tools.ietf.org'
Subject: draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn

Hi Jacob and Kishore,

It was nice meeting Jacob at the IETF97. I had a look at your draft and have following comments:

·         Why the draft scope does not explicitly mentions/includes RFC7432?
Sudhin>> it is updated in the latest combined draft.

[Iftekhar] Thanks. Please take a look at informative reference RFC7412. Is this a typo? Should it be RFC7432?



·         What is the impact on system performance (ARP memory for storing IP prefixes, lookups etc) and reliability (e.g., packet loss if any) when ARP-proxy is enabled (disabled)? Shouldn’t your draft cover those metrics on reduction (or increase) in flooding
Sudhin>>  Could you please let me know if you want to add arp scaling as parameter, we will do it. The reliability section community told us not to do it, there is a section we added named convergence to check how fast the DUT converge in terms of failure.

[Iftekhar] Yes, some scaling parameter would make sense to me.

in BUM traffic due to ARP-proxy enabling(disabling)?

·         What is the performance metric for PE-CE load balancing (active-active)? Shouldn’t this be covered in the draft?
Sudhin>>> I think that is a functional parameter, functional parameters are not supported by this workgroup.

[Iftekhar] I am thinking there should be some metric to measure the level of load balancing  between PE-CE and PE-PE. Let us see what other folks have any opinion on this.

Thanks,
Iftekhar

I support this work and believe this work would be useful for EVPN multi-vendor deployment scenarios.

Thanks
Iftekhar