Re: 答复: Questions about the draft of "A new Designated Forwarder Election for the EVPN"

"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com> Tue, 30 September 2014 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <sajassi@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0A2A1A1B35 for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.986
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 IjXgDb4HG9kv for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2D251A1B3D for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15410; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1412096571; x=1413306171; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=tbslsu+8HGL0xtk/g68m9iGrJKAK05SKD1g1UkpqVao=; b=AHzN2jq1znuMrtXHHu2naPTgcDraePwJ0PiDSqbZa7Yz9d3NT1hSaO1/ cP/Qz4q+y5F4FuVBUaEMtS3owRQeS7n6Luy4FIq0pukWwi9Er9rdSbMMU RKEHSzjO8dN3dVim/WZO54vRjZ2D7vBtoTVGJ7as2VfgVSoqBp4m2FObc s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlMFAJnhKlStJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABggkgjI4EqBIJ+znMCGXEWAXuEAwECBCNoAQYCEQMBAigDAgQwFAYDCAEBBAESG4gjAYwsnEyWCgEXjzsBEQE/FwGCeIFTBZFqi0WMRYkrgiCBQ2yBDzmBAgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,627,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="359512238"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Sep 2014 17:02:50 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8UH2ng7006591 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:02:49 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x13.cisco.com ([fe80::5404:b599:9f57:834b]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:02:49 -0500
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <sajassi@cisco.com>
To: Haoweiguo <haoweiguo@huawei.com>, "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IOetlOWkjTogUXVlc3Rpb25zIGFib3V0IHRoZSBkcmFmdCBvZiAiQSBu?= =?utf-8?Q?ew_Designated_Forwarder_Election_for_the_EVPN"?=
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?562U5aSNOiBRdWVzdGlvbnMgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGRyYWZ0IG9mICJBIG5ldyBE?= =?utf-8?Q?esignated_Forwarder_Election_for_the_EVPN"?=
Thread-Index: Ac/cVzVI2xbfnFI0SNaQkvamT0+xcgAA58Xl///5GYCAADNn9YAAnQYA
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:02:48 +0000
Message-ID: <D0502DC5.F0F11%sajassi@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <DD5FC8DE455C3348B94340C0AB5517334F806A16@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
x-originating-ip: [10.128.2.45]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D0502DC5F0F11sajassiciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2vpn/PePTUDT6-FeF6SFLoJEFoSC7Yz4
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:02:54 -0000

Haoweiguo,

First we are not in business of comparing/contrasting our solutions/procedures with the ones from other SDOs. We have written a requirement document [RFC7209], and we need to ensure our solutions to adhere to the specified requirements.

Second, wrt your question on what are the advantages of EVPN redundancy mechanism compare to DRNI, just FYI, there are couple of main advantages:

  1.  EVPN can accommodate any number of systems in a redundancy group (not just 2 or 3 !!) - e.g., in DRNI terminology, you can have any number of systems in a Portal
  2.  EVPN doesn’t require any data links (virtual or physical) between the member of redundancy groups – e.g., no Intra-Portal Links are required

Cheers,
Ali


From: Haoweiguo <haoweiguo@huawei.com<mailto:haoweiguo@huawei.com>>
Date: Monday, September 29, 2014 at 10:46 PM
To: Cisco Employee <sajassi@cisco.com<mailto:sajassi@cisco.com>>, "l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>" <l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>>
Subject: 答复: Questions about the draft of "A new Designated Forwarder Election for the EVPN"


Hi Ali,

Compared to IEEE DRNI, what's the advantage of your solution? It's better to add a section in your draft  to describe the comparison.

Thanks

weiguo

________________________________
发件人: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [sajassi@cisco.com<mailto:sajassi@cisco.com>]
发送时间: 2014年9月30日 12:36
收件人: Haoweiguo; l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
主题: Re: Questions about the draft of "A new Designated Forwarder Election for the EVPN"


There is no plan to use DRNI for EVPN.

-Ali

From: Haoweiguo <haoweiguo@huawei.com<mailto:haoweiguo@huawei.com>>
Date: Monday, September 29, 2014 at 8:03 PM
To: "l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>" <l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>>
Subject: Questions about the draft of "A new Designated Forwarder Election for the EVPN"


Sorry to repost the email to make it more clear...



Hi Co-authors,
In all-active connection case, to avoid frame duplication and looping, only one exit point among multiple PEs corresponding to a ESI is allowed to egress BUM traffic from EVPN network to local access network . DF election algorithm is a candidated solution. To overcome some DF election drawbacks,this draft proposed a new algorithm to replace DF election algorithm.
IEEE802.1AX,DRNI specs also can meet EVPN active-active connection requirements. Do you have plan to use IEEE existing standard to solve the problem?
Thanks
weiguo
________________________________
发件人: L2vpn [l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn-bounces@ietf.org>] 代表 Haoweiguo [haoweiguo@huawei.com<mailto:haoweiguo@huawei.com>]
发送时间: 2014年9月30日 10:37
收件人: l2vpn@ietf.org<mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
主题: Questions about the draft of "A new Designated Forwarder Election for the EVPN"


Hi Co-authors,
In all-active connection case, to avoid frame duplication and looping, only one exit point multiple PEs corresponding to a ESI is allowed to egress BUM traffic from EVPN network to local access network among . DF election algorithm is a candidated solution. To overcome some DF election drawbacks,this draft proposed a new algorithm to replace DF election algorithm.

IEEE802.1AX,DRNI specs also can meet EVPN active-active connection requirements. Do you have plan to use IEEE existing standard to solve the problem?

Thanks

weiguo