Re: [Idr] [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02' and draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-00

Hi John,

Since the tunnel encap draft goes with encap tunnel attribute and there was no deployment of RFC5512, IMO, we should deprecate encapsulation extended community to keep a consistent method. 

Thus, should the overlay draft states if BGP tunnel encapsulate attribute is not present, ....

Regards,
Lucy 

-----Original Message-----
From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of thomas.morin@orange.com
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 10:46 AM
To: John E Drake; bess@ietf.org
Cc: IDR; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Eric Rosen
Subject: Re: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02' and draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-00

John,

(Cc'ing IDR.)

2015-11-13, John E Drake:
>
> I spoke with Eric and Ali and we would like to change both the overlay  
> draft and the tunnel encaps drafts as follows.
>
> For the overlay draft, replace this text in section 5.1.3:
>
> "If the BGP Encapsulation extended community is not present, then 
> thedefault MPLS encapsulation or a statically configured encapsulation 
> is
 > assumed."
>
> With the following:
>
> "Note that the MPLS encapsulation tunnel type is needed in order to 
> distinguish between an advertising node that only supports non-MPLS 
> encapsulations and one that supports MPLS and non-MPLS encapsulations. 
> An advertising node that only supports MPLS encapsulation does not 
> need to advertise any encapsulation tunnel types; i.e., if the BGP 
> Encapsulation extended community is not present, then either MPLS 
> encapsulation or a statically configured encapsulation is assumed."

Having more text to explain things in the overlay draft does not hurt.

>
> For the tunnel encaps draft, replace this text in section 5:
>
> "If the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute contains several TLVs (i.e., 
> ifit specifies several tunnels), router R may choose any one of those
 > tunnels, based upon local policy. If any of tunnels' TLVs contain the  > Color sub-TLV and/or the Protocol Type sub-TLV defined in [RFC5512], the
> choice of tunnel may be influenced by these sub-TLVs."
>
> With the following:
>
> "If the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute contains several TLVs (i.e., 
> ifit specifies several tunnels), router R may choose any one of those 
> tunnels, based upon local policy. If any of tunnels' TLVs contain the 
> Color sub-TLV and/or the Protocol Type sub-TLV defined in [RFC5512], 
> the choice of tunnel may be influenced by these sub-TLVs. Note that if 
> none of the TLVs specifies the MPLS tunnel type, a Label Switched Path 
> SHOULD NOT be used unless none of the TLVs specifies a feasible tunnel."

I think that the above will technically work.

*However* it would be a pity to *not* have the very useful clear-text explanation of the reason for the 'MPLS' type (what you propose to add above in the overlay draft) in  draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-00... why provide the smooth explanation for only one of the specs to which this 'MPLS' type applies ?

>
> We hope this is satisfactory.

Close, but not quite there yet :)

Best,

-Thomas

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Morin [mailto:thomas.morin@orange.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:08 AM
>> To: John E Drake; bess@ietf.org
>> Cc: Eric Rosen
>> Subject: Re: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> 2015-11-12, John E Drake:
>>>
>>> Why do you think it should be documented in Eric's draft rather than 
>>> in the
>> EVPN Overlay draft?
>>
>> The issue applies beyond the context of E-VPN overlay specs, and 
>> exist in any context where different kinds of MPLS(/x) encaps can be 
>> mixed (E-VPN non-overlay, IP VPNs), which is addressed by Eric's draft.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -Thomas
>

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess