Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR Telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay

Alvaro Retana <> Thu, 22 February 2018 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE9D12D87F; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:59:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SEyyejQY0VsV; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:58:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E0AB126DEE; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:58:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x12so4323486oie.13; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:58:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8ezggeVVmyw7APsftkWej8p8ep0pxT3cEywQ7iJypu4=; b=BBAkah8S/jZuRkzdFAwsBMZYiXPaSfpKEYFPbsbexHNwshk7i+MJO4+By9YFvihmuk a5wLv4hY8JAGhVA26gz9AxnB5pQp3Ifv7+LAQTp3vw3bUmtTTR6kOCWAwfedsGNplWnu rzgsHrw1Z4zk1gIVIZsWE8gV6SgxZ8cPu7hWXqFMXfbYc4n9qHu1mTuT+frqDxqXNNk9 GW1k9jzYzDrOwtahnPpl1gR17gEOmiIRlRtA72yjICDdS7VbgREQytTKv6oyrPcZjW1M 8eUm17pW4fuYj1kirr3vaf3rOkV+fUGkrEIyiZ0/HiBRl55IwEWkTyyZZrU14dp3Yxaa YgeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8ezggeVVmyw7APsftkWej8p8ep0pxT3cEywQ7iJypu4=; b=AJyW5X8Ojp/zq82vvWsvL9MJ9YFW4aQtcfnBExYtJ+qubd3JKZdnnrC8fY7yJrS/7A 4pQAacsbpvIYn2Vh2TW2KfO5YdJiAd7S30dqHKu7+/ezom6CVxLjkK5I+2kt5TgD3r1E sGAybx+OPxfW1PFCh3ohgmwD1oP68JMslUnBq1LaDRKHN0ecrGXZvC6DWqYrGli/nA5Z AXSHY9aFl6TCznbpTCZSTAC0V5wT6oRnWxY2rNlEhYXn+4K+sBjBPySvjz4RaoPL7y8M 0ta4zVoNcuJQKL9iPr2lZ7svYw2RE+TTzRKa68lWnxznrCpUEp+WCJZZwaUBZcmO3k94 H9NQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDY/ZS3ywAaF6lz8OBXB5WCbr5xIwmf0s2Pm2CDTVlw1TRTjJpo 83jQAQm+rv0BdWNZiLn3LeMXHrcWvz5FZkIPNzk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2276vYkj+wQiDJpu/J4V0iTQ3EWFMbk7T5Cj8TBwPe4wPHqhUrdthL/Rjt0i2Qu+11iLUL+Nx03mHYssFjMqZVc=
X-Received: by with SMTP id q84mr5287040oih.209.1519322337658; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:58:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:58:56 -0500
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Airmail (467)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:58:56 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <>, Alexander Vainshtein <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c095d303c4dbf0565d0cc41"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR Telechat review of draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:59:01 -0000


Sasha: You make a good point: if here are things that this document Updates
rfc7432 on, which are not specific just to the DCI, then we should go ahead
with it.

The current related text reads:

   In particular, the document updates [RFC7432] on several aspects:

   o The Interconnect Ethernet Segment (I-ES), an Ethernet Segment that
     can be associated not only to a set of Ethernet links, as in
     [RFC7432], but also to a set of PWs or other tunnels.

   o The use of the Unknown MAC route in a DCI scenario.

   o The processing of EVPN routes on Gateways with MAC-VRFs connecting
     EVPN-Overlay and EVPN-MPLS networks, or EVPN-Overlay and EVPN-
     Overlay networks.

Jorge:  Are there extensions defined in this document that are not specific
to the DCI case and that should apply to any EVPN scenario?  If so, can we
update the text to only reflect items that are *not* just DCI-specific?

That is the only outstanding item as the document was otherwise approved by
the IESG today.



On February 21, 2018 at 8:17:10 AM, Alexander Vainshtein ( wrote:

PWs as an a “virtual ES” are also used in conjunction with EVPN in the
scenarios that are not directly related to DCI. One example (actually
pointed to me by Jorge during the review process) is the EVPN Virtual
Ethernet Segment
 draft (now expired).

It is, of course, up to you to decide whether this justifies marking the
draft I’ve reviewed as Updating RFC 7432 because it also defined PWs as a
(virtual) ES for EVPN. Alternatively, it is possible to wait until the EVPN
Virtual segment draft is resuscitated and progressed – but this can take
quite some time...