IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Pals] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7432 (7758)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 11 January 2024 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93E6C14F6B4 for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:02:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.657
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Es2e3xwB-yef for <pals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:02:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (rfcpa.amsl.com [50.223.129.200]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26E25C14F701 for <pals@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:02:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id EE2F51182206; Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:02:46 -0800 (PST)
To: sajassi@cisco.com, raggarwa_1@yahoo.com, nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com, aisaac71@bloomberg.net, uttaro@att.com, jdrake@juniper.net, wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, jgs@juniper.net, andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, giheron@cisco.com, nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: pavel.mykhailyk@gmail.com, pals@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240111080246.EE2F51182206@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:02:46 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/JEEsp3weWOXOspoBePDX3xZgwFE>
Subject: [Pals] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7432 (7758)
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 08:02:51 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7432,
"BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7758

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Pavel Mykhailyk <pavel.mykhailyk@gmail.com>

Section: 8.1.1

Original Text
-------------
The Ethernet Segment route filtering MUST be done such that the
   Ethernet Segment route is imported only by the PEs that are
   multihomed to the same Ethernet segment

Corrected Text
--------------
The Ethernet Segment route filtering MUST be done such that the
   Ethernet Segment route is imported only by the PEs that are
   connected to same EVI

Notes
-----
In all text in context of evpn-multihoming term ES used for logical set of links - distributed PortChannel when CE use several links to different PEs as single aggregate link. But in section 8.1.1 term ES can't be used in same way, becouse ES routes must be distributed for all PE that hold same VLAN. For example PE1 and PE2 connected to CE1 with EVPN-MH PortChannel (ESI-1) and use VLAN 10, CE2 connected to PE3 and use VLAN 10 but not use any aggregation - not included to any ES. PE3 build mac table for CE1 mac and must use ESI-1 as next-hop, so it must apply ES route and not filter it, regardles of local connection to ES in terms of EVPN-MH PortChannel. So each PE connected to EVI import this route

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it 
will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC7432 (draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-11)
--------------------------------------
Title               : BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN
Publication Date    : February 2015
Author(s)           : A. Sajassi, Ed., R. Aggarwal, N. Bitar, A. Isaac, J. Uttaro, J. Drake, W. Henderickx
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email