Re: [RTG-DIR] [bess] Routing Directorate Review for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-10

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jorge, 

On 3/13/17, 9:04 AM, "BESS on behalf of Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>Sami, 
>
>About this one:
>
>³  1. Why is receiving an extended community with both the P and B flags
>set treated as a withdrawal, while it is ignored for the case when both
>the P and B flags are clear?
>
>I agree both should be treated as a withdrawal, I will change the text.²
>
>
>[JORGE] Sami, please correct this:
>
>³If the PE receives a route with both B and P
>   clear, it MUST treat the route as a withdrawal from the sender PE.²
>
>As you have in the following paragraph, flags P=B=0 is perfectly valid:
>
>³In multihoming single-active scenario for a given VPWS service
>   instance, the DF election should result in the Primary-elected PE for
>   the VPWS service instance advertising the P Flag set and the B Flag
>   clear, the Backup elected PE should advertise the P Flag clear and
>   the B Flag set, ****and the rest of the PEs in the same ES should
>signal
>   both P and B Flags clear.****²

Yes - but during DF election, you¹d want the former Primary or Backup
advertisement to relinquish their respective roles. Now, there a multiple
ways this could be accomplished and the -11 version on using the last
advertised Primary or Backup should also result in the correct behavior.
However, withdrawal would assure DF convergence as well as provide
consistent behavior for both P and B Flags set and P and B Flags clear.

Thanks,
Acee 




>
>
>Let me know if I¹m missing something please. Don¹t want to hold the
>progress, but this is important.
>Thank you.
>Jorge
>
>
>
>On 3/12/17, 8:24 PM, "Sami Boutros" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>    Hi Acee,
>    
>    Please find attached document with all comments addresses, if all
>good will 
>    Submit before the cut-off tomorrow.
>    
>    Please see comments inline.
>    On 3/12/17, 11:36 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>    
>    
>    >Hi Sami, 
>    >
>    >I think this version reads much better. I still have a couple
>comments and
>    >questions. 
>    >
>    >  1. Why is receiving an extended community with both the P and B
>flags
>    >set treated as a withdrawal, while it is ignored for the case when
>both
>    >the P and B flags are clear?
>    
>    I agree both should be treated as a withdrawal, I will change the
>text.
>    
>    >  2. A related question is if a route with both the P and B flags
>clear is
>    >ignored, won¹t this break DF election described on the bottom of
>page 8?
>    >It says ³the rest of the PEs in the same ES should single both the P
>and B
>    >Flags clear.²
>    
>    The DF election is between the PE(s) attached to the ES and has
>nothing to do 
>    With the remote PE receiving the routes from the PE(s) attached to
>the ES.
>    The remote PE expect to receive one route with P Flag set and another
>route 
>    With with B flag set from another PE, all other routes received from
>other PE(s) 
>    Attached to the same ES are not needed, and hence can be treated as
>withdrawal
>    Of previous routes from those Pe(s).
>    
>    > 
>    >  3. Also, during DF election, is it implementation specific which
>backup
>    >is chosen if multiple PEs advertise the B Flag set in their
>respective
>    >extended communities?
>    
>    The DF election MUST always result in one Backup and One primary,
>however 
>    During transit more than one route with P or B Flags can be received.
>    
>    >Why isn¹t it the last one similar to the primary PE
>    >selection?
>    
>    Ok, to be consistent, will change the text to have the remote PE
>select the 
>    last advertising backup PE.
>    
>    > 
>    >  4. Both VID and VLAN ID are used in the document. I didn¹t
>research this
>    >but from the context it appears these are synonymous. If VID is
>used, I¹d
>    >also add it to the ³Terminology² in 1.1.
>    
>    Ok.
>    >
>    >  A few more Nits:
>    >*** draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11.txt.orig	2017-03-12
>13:56:46.000000000
>    >-0400
>    >--- draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11.txt	2017-03-12 14:34:06.000000000
>-0400
>    >***************
>    >*** 153,163 ****
>    >     instance. As with the Ethernet Tag in standard EVPN, the VPWS
>service
>    >     instance identifier has uniqueness within an EVPN instance.
>    >  
>    >!    For EVPN routes, the Ethernet Tag ID are set to zero for
>Port-based,
>    >!    VLAN-based, and VLAN-bundle interface mode and it is set to
>non-zero
>    >!    Ethernet tag ID for VLAN-aware bundle mode. Conversely, for
>EVPN-
>    >     VPWS, the Ethernet tag ID in the Ethernet A-D route MUST be set
>to a
>    >!    non-zero value for all four  service interface types.
>    >  
>    >     In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior,
>EVPN-
>    >     VPWS resembles the VLAN-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such
>that when
>    >--- 153,163 ----
>    >     instance. As with the Ethernet Tag in standard EVPN, the VPWS
>service
>    >     instance identifier has uniqueness within an EVPN instance.
>    >  
>    >!    For EVPN routes, the Ethernet Tag IDs are set to zero for
>Port-based,
>    >!    VLAN-based, and VLAN-bundle interface mode and set to non-zero
>    >!    Ethernet Tag IDs for VLAN-aware bundle mode. Conversely, for
>EVPN-
>    >     VPWS, the Ethernet tag ID in the Ethernet A-D route MUST be set
>to a
>    >!    non-zero value for all four service interface types.
>    >  
>    >     In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior,
>EVPN-
>    >     VPWS resembles the VLAN-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432] such
>that when
>    >***************
>    >*** 181,188 ****
>    >     Ethernet frames are transported as is and the tags are not
>altered.
>    >  
>    >     The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the
>    >!    VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) for VxLAN encap, and this VNI
>may have
>    >!    a global scope or local scope per PE and may also be made equal
>to
>    >     the VPWS service instance identifier set in the Ethernet A-D
>route.
>    >  
>    >     The Ethernet Segment identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D
>per-EVI
>    >--- 181,188 ----
>    >     Ethernet frames are transported as is and the tags are not
>altered.
>    >  
>    >     The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the
>    >!    VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN encap, and this VNI
>may have
>    >!    a global scope or local scope per PE and may also be equal to
>    >     the VPWS service instance identifier set in the Ethernet A-D
>route.
>    >  
>    >     The Ethernet Segment identifier encoded in the Ethernet A-D
>per-EVI
>    >***************
>    >*** 312,321 ****
>    >  
>    >  2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface
>    >  
>    >!    Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to
>VLAN-
>    >     based service interface (defined in section 2.1) and thus this
>    >     service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS.  In other words, if
>one
>    >!    tries to define data-plane and control plane behavior for this
>    >     service interface, one would realize that it is the same as
>that of
>    >     VLAN-based service.
>    >  
>    >--- 312,321 ----
>    >  
>    >  2.3 VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface
>    >  
>    >!    Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to a
>VLAN-
>    >     based service interface (defined in section 2.1) and thus this
>    >     service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS.  In other words, if
>one
>    >!    tries to define data plane and control plane behavior for this
>    >     service interface, one would realize that it is the same as
>that of
>    >     VLAN-based service.
>    >  
>    >***************
>    >*** 326,332 ****
>    >     signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is
>set to
>    >     the customer ES and the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be
>set to
>    >     the VPWS service instance identifier value. The VPWS service
>instance
>    >!    identifier value MAY be set to a 24-bit value, when 24-bit
>value is
>    >     used, it MUST be right aligned. For both EPL and EVPL services
>using
>    >     a given VPWS service instance, the pair of PEs instantiating
>that
>    >     VPWS service instance will each advertise a per-EVI Ethernet A-D
>    >--- 326,332 ----
>    >     signal VPWS services. The Ethernet Segment Identifier field is
>set to
>    >     the customer ES and the Ethernet Tag ID 32-bit field MUST be
>set to
>    >     the VPWS service instance identifier value. The VPWS service
>instance
>    >!    identifier value MAY be set to a 24-bit value and when a 24-bit
>value
>    >is
>    >     used, it MUST be right aligned. For both EPL and EVPL services
>using
>    >     a given VPWS service instance, the pair of PEs instantiating
>that
>    >     VPWS service instance will each advertise a per-EVI Ethernet A-D
>    >***************
>    >*** 354,361 ****
>    >  
>    >  3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community
>    >  
>    >!    This draft proposes a new extended community [RFC4360], to be
>    >!    included with the per-EVI Ethernet A-D route. This attribute is
>    >     mandatory if multihoming is enabled.
>    >  
>    >          +------------------------------------+
>    >--- 354,361 ----
>    >  
>    >  3.1 EVPN Layer 2 attributes extended community
>    >  
>    >!    This document defines an extended community [RFC4360], to be
>    >!    included with per-EVI Ethernet A-D routes. This attribute is
>    >     mandatory if multihoming is enabled.
>    >  
>    >          +------------------------------------+
>    >***************
>    >*** 423,429 ****
>    >  
>    >     In a multihoming all-active scenario, there is no DF election,
>and
>    >     all the PEs in the ES that are active and ready to forward
>traffic
>    >!    to/from the CE will set the P Flag. A remote PE will do
>per-flow load
>    >     balancing to the PEs that set the P Flag for the same Ethernet
>Tag
>    >     and ESI. The B Flag in control flags SHOULD NOT be set in the
>    >     multihoming all-active scenario and MUST be ignored by receiving
>    >--- 423,429 ----
>    >  
>    >     In a multihoming all-active scenario, there is no DF election,
>and
>    >     all the PEs in the ES that are active and ready to forward
>traffic
>    >!    to/from the CE will set the P Flag. A remote PE will do
>per-flow load-
>    >     balancing to the PEs that set the P Flag for the same Ethernet
>Tag
>    >     and ESI. The B Flag in control flags SHOULD NOT be set in the
>    >     multihoming all-active scenario and MUST be ignored by receiving
>    >***************
>    >*** 493,499 ****
>    >  
>    >     All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange
>per-EVI
>    >     Ethernet A-D routes, one route per VPWS service instance.  For
>inter-
>    >!    AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes with NEXT_HOP
>    >     attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link
>    >     between the CE and the PE is either a C-tagged or S-tagged
>interface,
>    >     as described in [802.1Q], that can carry a single VLAN tag or
>two
>    >--- 493,499 ----
>    >  
>    >     All PEs and ASBRs are enabled for the EVPN SAFI and exchange
>per-EVI
>    >     Ethernet A-D routes, one route per VPWS service instance.  For
>inter-
>    >!    AS option B, the ASBRs re-advertise these routes with the
>NEXT_HOP
>    >     attribute set to their IP addresses as per [RFC4271]. The link
>    >     between the CE and the PE is either a C-tagged or S-tagged
>interface,
>    >     as described in [802.1Q], that can carry a single VLAN tag or
>two
>    >***************
>    >*** 570,576 ****
>    >     Finally, EVPN may employ data plane egress link protection
>mechanisms
>    >     not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on
>local
>    >     AC down) using the label advertised in the per-EVI Ethernet A-D
>route
>    >!    by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to
>backup
>    >     PE.
>    >  
>    >  6 Failure Scenarios
>    >--- 570,576 ----
>    >     Finally, EVPN may employ data plane egress link protection
>mechanisms
>    >     not available in VPWS. This can be done by the primary PE (on
>local
>    >     AC down) using the label advertised in the per-EVI Ethernet A-D
>route
>    >!    by the backup PE to encapsulate the traffic and direct it to the
>    >backup
>    >     PE.
>    >  
>    >  6 Failure Scenarios
>    >***************
>    >*** 592,600 ****
>    >     For a faster convergence in multi-homed scenarios with either
>Single-
>    >     Active Redundancy or All-active redundancy, a mass withdraw
>technique
>    >     is used. A PE previously advertising a per-ES Ethernet A-D
>route, can
>    >!    withdraw this route signaling to the remote PEs to switch all
>the
>    >     VPWS service instances associated with this multi-homed ES to
>the
>    >!    backup PE
>    >  
>    >  7 Acknowledgements
>    >  
>    >--- 592,600 ----
>    >     For a faster convergence in multi-homed scenarios with either
>Single-
>    >     Active Redundancy or All-active redundancy, a mass withdraw
>technique
>    >     is used. A PE previously advertising a per-ES Ethernet A-D
>route, can
>    >!    withdraw this route by signaling to the remote PEs to switch
>all the
>    >     VPWS service instances associated with this multi-homed ES to
>the
>    >!    backup PE.
>    >  
>    >  7 Acknowledgements
>    
>    Thanks,
>    
>    Sami
>    >
>    
>
>_______________________________________________
>BESS mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess