Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 WG LC (5/24 to 6/7)

[Zhuangshunwan <[e-mail]>]

Support.

This extension can address the requirement that one Ethernet A-D route per ESI can be issued with 4k RTs,
No need to use a set of routes that each route use a different RD to convey the total number of RTs.

https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-usage-02.txt
5.2.1. Service startup procedures

   As soon as the EVIs are created in PE1, PE2 and PE3, the following
   control plane actions are carried out:

   o Flooding tree setup per EVI (4k routes): Each PE will send one
     Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route per EVI (up to 4k routes per
     PE) so that the flooding tree per EVI can be setup. Note that
     ingress replication or P2MP LSPs can optionally be signaled in the
     PMSI Tunnel attribute and the corresponding tree be created.

   o Ethernet A-D routes per ESI (a set of routes for ESI12): A set of
     A-D routes with a list of 4k RTs (one per EVI) for ESI12 will be
     issued from PE1 and PE2 (it has to be a set of routes so that the
     total number of RTs can be conveyed). As per [RFC7432], each
     Ethernet A-D route per ESI is differentiated from the other routes
     in the set by a different Route Distinguisher (ES RD). This set
     will also include ESI Label extended communities with the active-
     standby flag set to zero (all-active multi-homing type) and an ESI
     Label different from zero (used for split-horizon functions). These
     routes will be imported by the three PEs, since the RTs match the
     EVI RTs locally configured. The A-D routes per ESI will be used for
     fast convergence and split-horizon functions, as discussed in
     [RFC7432].

Regards,
Shunwan


发件人: Idr [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Susan Hares
发送时间: 2016年5月25日 4:42
收件人: [e-mail]
抄送: 'Keyur Patel (keyupate)'; 'David Ward'
主题: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-12 WG LC (5/24 to 6/7)

This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages (5/24 to 6/7). The draft can be found at:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages/

In your comments please provide the following information:

1)      Support/”no-support” of this draft being ready for publication,

2)      You know of an implementation for this draft, please report the implementation to the IDR Wiki

https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/idr/trac/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-implementations


3)      Do you have any concerns about extending the BGP messages.

Sue Hares and John Scudder