About draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-vpls-integration-00
"Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" <jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 06 November 2013 20:09 UTC
Return-Path: <jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82EF421E81A2 for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:09:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 uQmk2qClBAsu for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:09:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095F921E818D for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:09:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id rA6K994K021855 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:09:10 -0600 (CST)
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id rA6K97Vs020978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:09:08 +0100
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.70]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:09:08 +0100
From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)" <jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: About draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-vpls-integration-00
Thread-Topic: About draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-vpls-integration-00
Thread-Index: AQHO2abn5Bvj2w9IKEq2BOsck9lkHJoYDekA
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:09:08 +0000
Message-ID: <CE9FE04E.2895E%jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE9AA557.28335%jorge.rabadan@alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <057787753C66F340910831596DEE18FF@exchange.lucent.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 20:09:22 -0000
Ali and draft authors, Some comments about the draft. General comments: 1) Very good draft and very well explained, as expected. The first thing that I thought when I was beginning to read it is that the draft proposed a sort of gateway function between EVPN and VPLS, which is not the case as later explained. I believe a diagram would help clarifying this to the reader. It would also help when describing what kind of multi-homing is expected to work or not. Specific comments: 2) Page 3: "When a (PBB-)EVPN PE receives both a VPLS AD route as well as an EVPN Inclusive Multicast route from a given remote PE for the same VPN instance, it MUST give preference to the EVPN route for the purpose of discovery." This is confusing. VPLS AD and EVPN incl. mcast routes belong to separate families, BGP will not compare them for any purposes. 3) Page 4 "- If a (PBB-)EVPN PE receives a VPLS AD route followed by an EVPN AD route from the same PE and a pseudowire is setup to that PE, then the (PBB-)EVPN PE MUST deactivate that pseudowire. - If a (PBB-)EVPN PE receives an EVPN AD route followed by a VPLS AD route from the same PE, then the (PBB-)EVPN PE MUST ignore the VPLS AD route." Suggested text: "- If a (PBB-)EVPN PE receives a VPLS AD route followed by an EVPN AD route from the same PE and a pseudowire is setup to that PE, then the (PBB-)EVPN PE MUST bring that pseudowire operationally down. - If a (PBB-)EVPN PE receives an EVPN AD route followed by a VPLS AD route from the same PE, then the (PBB-)EVPN PE will setup the pseudowire but MUST keep it operationally down" Reason: consistency. The same behavior must be observed for potential FEC128 pseudowires between (PBB-)EVPN PEs. It also simplifies procedures when the EVPN route is withdrawn but not the BGP-AD route. 4) Page 4: "When the (PBB-)EVPN PE receives traffic over the pseudowires, it learns the associated MAC addresses in the data-plane. This is analogous to dynamic learning in IEEE bridges." Suggested additional text: "The MAC addresses learnt and associated to the pseudowires will NOT be advertised in the control plane to any remote (PBB-)EVPN PE." Reason: this has to be clearly stated. Otherwise MAC duplication might occur. 5) Page 5: "3.3.1 Ingress Replication The procedures for multicast operation on the (PBB-)VPLS PE, using ingress replication, are per [RFC4447] and [PBB- VPLS]." - need to modify format - Wrong reference -> ingress replication is not an RFC4447 concept but RFC4761/4762. 6) Page 3: "In case of single-active redundancy, the participant VPN instances MAY span across both (PBB-)EVPN PEs and (PBB-)VPLS PEs as long as single-active redundancy is employed by (PBB-)EVPN PEs" - need to clarify that, in case of ESI link failure, the (PBB-)EVPN PEs will send a BGP mass-withdraw to the EVPN peers OR MAC advertisement with mac-mobility ext-comm for PBB-EVPN AND an LDP MAC withdrawal to the VPLS peers. - also, single-active mh should also be possible in this scenario for BGP-AD PEs. 7) Page 3: "8. In case of all-active redundancy, the participant VPN instances MAY span across (PBB-)EVPN and (PBB-)VPLS PEs." - requirement 8 is contradicting 7 and making both statements confusing. 8 should be removed or explained with clarity. (PBB-)VPLS PEs do not support all-active MH today. Thank you. Jorge
- About draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-vpls-integration-00 Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)
- Re: About draft-sajassi-l2vpn-evpn-vpls-integrati… Ali Sajassi (sajassi)