Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn
Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com> Fri, 15 March 2013 23:17 UTC
Return-Path: <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE7C11E80F8; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KqLIlDjhhXaB; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85E821F8771; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-b7faf6d00000096b-33-5143abf6182a
Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D7.CB.02411.6FBA3415; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 00:17:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.96]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 19:17:10 -0400
From: Jakob Heitz <jakob.heitz@ericsson.com>
To: Satya Mohanty <smohanty@juniper.net>, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn
Thread-Index: AQHOHzFpw7wq2p0F306XvoGHyBm2OpinSauggAAcl9A=
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:17:09 +0000
Message-ID: <2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E1C8338@eusaamb109.ericsson.se>
References: <69670F7146898C4583F56DA9AD32F77B1230F9D9@xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com> <DBDBC40345866E4FA5701A2C8C2684222CC47522@BY2PRD0510MB377.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DBDBC40345866E4FA5701A2C8C2684222CC47522@BY2PRD0510MB377.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.135]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2F3EBB88EC3A454AAB08915FBF0B8C7E1C8338eusaamb109ericsso_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPgu731c6BBh8Oi1jca9jJbPHq9jMm i8ffDrFbvDvbzGJxpfU+iwOrx5TfG1k9liz5yeRxvekqewBzFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfG6+Ur mApOTmGsuDN5HnMD48JGxi5GTg4JAROJz58XsEPYYhIX7q1n62Lk4hASOMIosXzZP1aQhJDA ckaJPzPcQWw2AR2Jb9e7mEFsEYEyiRlr5wLZHBzMAiES67e6gYSFBZQkem7dZ4UoUZY4P/8X I4RtJbFz61+wOIuAqsSPF8fAxvAKeEs0LlwMtXcxo8S0ja/BGjgFEiXetx0FK2IEOu77qTVM IDazgLjErSfzmSCOFpBYsuc8M4QtKvHyMcTNEkCLv895xAJxW77E3r1xELsEJU7OfMIygVF0 FpJJsxCqZiGpgijRkViw+xMbhK0tsWzha2YY+8yBx0zI4gsY2VcxcpQWp5blphsZbmIERt8x CTbHHYwLPlkeYpTmYFES5w11vRAgJJCeWJKanZpakFoUX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgXGq717P3xWM HX8F739mmH4/xeX7AcPZPmKx+edFlxxc3aLruGnGBu1fS5ewFQaa/9JiOXvd6rLdqoTY9Z1O QaF50jPlBLUiF8UkfNMROWZytXl7EttWtv+zevYtCLu+YALvwpttR2vOqDdKLX5dxPVbrkHX mDvIuMaHa8Fl1n0z/q9j85G/HaDEUpyRaKjFXFScCAAgbVNljAIAAA==
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>, "Giles Heron (giheron)" <giheron@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:17:14 -0000
The egress PE can allocate MAC labels anyway it likes as long as it can deliver the frame when it arrives with that label. It is not necessarily the same as the alias label. A frame arriving with the alias label will most likely undergo a MAC/VLAN lookup. This does not prevent it from using a different label allocation scheme for MAC labels than for alias labels. -- Jakob Heitz. x25475. 510-566-2901 ________________________________ From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Satya Mohanty Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 3:16 PM To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); idr@ietf.org Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; Giles Heron (giheron) Subject: RE: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn Few comments, 1. Sec 8.3: Please consider putting in a line stating that the per ESI Route (type 4) carries a label with all 0s (like the Type 1 mandatory route) in the MP-Reach NLRI. 2. This is not explicitly sec 8 but I think there may be a discrepancy in the draft. Page 27, top paragraph An PE may advertise the same single E-VPN label for all MAC addresses in a given EVI. This label assignment methodology is referred to as a per EVI label assignment. Alternatively, an PE may advertise a unique E-VPN label per <ESI, Ethernet Tag> combination. This label assignment methodology is referred to as a per <ESI, Ethernet Tag> label assignment. As a third option, an PE may advertise a unique E- VPN label per MAC address. All of these methodologies have their tradeoffs. I see a problem with the third option (per-prefix allocation mode), related to aliasing in the Active/Active case. In such a label allocation mode, what label will be associated with the per EVI AD route ? Let's say PE1 and PE2 share the same ESI, PE1 and PE1 uses per prefix label allocation mode, and PE2 uses either per EVI or per <ESI, Ethernet-tag> label allocation mode. As per the aliasing behavior, a mac route (say p1 with label l1) advertised from PE1, should be reachable from PE3 via PE2, irrespective of whether PE2 advertised p1 or not. If PE2 did not advertise p1, but PE3 sends traffic to PE2, what label does PE3 slap on frames? As per the draft, it will slap the label what was received in the per EVI AD route. Moot question is what does it correspond to here ? Should per-prefix label allocation be allowed? If it is, I think then the concept of aliasing will be lost, and all macs with the same EVI, ESI need to be advertised from each of the PEs configured to the same ES. PE1 -- --- --| / |_______ CE ________ RR-------PE3 \ | PE2 ---------| Thanks, --Satya From: l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:54 AM To: idr@ietf.org Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org; Giles Heron (giheron) Subject: draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn In preparation for WG last call of this draft, our L2VPN chairs have asked us to solicit comments on the BGP section of this document (section 8). http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-03.txt Please kindly review this draft and post your comments by Friday March/29. Thanks, Ali
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn Susan Hares
- [Idr] draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn Satya Mohanty
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn Jakob Heitz
- Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn Satya Mohanty