Hi, Adrian -
Of course it's possible that I'm wrong - in fact, it would be great if
that turns out to be the case. But my suspicion is that it will take
material updates (not just editorial) to fix at least one of the issues
that I described in my review. And, in-line with some of the feedback
that I heard during the plenary at IETF-91, I am biased toward having
WGs review material changes, etc.
Here are my views of the severity of changes for each of the three
topics that I raised:
Simple: I agree that it should be relatively straight-forward to fix the
namespace issue. While I'm not intimately familiar with it, I think that
RFC 3688 describes how the appropriate namespace can be assigned. I'm
comfortable describing this as editorial rather than material.
Somewhat more material: It may also be straight-forward to fix the VXLAN
encapsulation issue, either by removing the VXLAN option from the
schema, or by making reference to another document that describes the
procedure. I can imagine at least a couple ways that such encapsulation
might be done. However I'm not aware of the existence of such a
document, which means it probably needs to be developed. And it seems to
me that the 'label' element in the end-system schema might be inadequate
information for such an encapsulation procedure.
Probably very material: The draft really needs some kind of text around
the various issues I included in the "Second" issue paragraph, in my
previous message. Specifically, there needs to be some text about
assignment of route-server JIDs. This should include some explanation
about how route-server JIDs relate to the redundancy scheme that's
sketched out in the draft. This should also include some kind of error
handling discussion around incorrect JIDs being used in messages, etc.
Much of the preceding also applies to pubsub 'node' values, with an
emphasis on the error handling issues. It is possible that the authors
have an editorial solution to this, which would avoid material changes
to the draft text, but my limited imagination can't picture what that
might look like.
As I said above, I would be happy to be wrong about the severity of
these changes. But my suspicion is that they are somewhat material
additions / changes to the draft text.
Cheers,
-Benson
Adrian Farrel <mailto:[email protected]>
November 25, 2014 at 3:00 AM
Hi Benson,
Thanks for reviewing and commenting. I'm sure the authors will address
your points.
I'd just like to pick up on the last one...
> Otherwise, I'm not sure that this draft is ready for Proposed Standard
> publication. I suspect that it may need further review and development
> in BESS.
The draft went through WG process in L3VPN and was subject to WG last
call. There is nothing intrinsically different between processing in
BESS and processing in L3VPN.
So I read you as saying that the three points you have raised are
evidence that more review and development are needed. But it seems to
me that the three points you have raised are relatively small and
easily addressed (perhaps I will be proven wrong) so can you clarify
why you think this work should be sent back to the working group.
Thanks,
Adrian
*From:*Benson Schliesser [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* 24 November 2014 23:36
*To:* [email protected]; [email protected]
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: Last Call Comment draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04.txt
In addition to Adrian's comment, I'm confused by a number of things in
draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04. Just picking on the big ones:
First, I think there might be a mistake in the XML examples and/or
XSD. The schema in section 11 defines a target namespace of
http://www.ietf.org/bgp-l3vpn-unicast.xsd but the examples use
http://ietf.org/protocol/bgpvpn.
Second, the document doesn't seem to provide adequate operational
guidance on how to determine the route server JID, how to determine
the correct pubsub node values, etc. I assume that the server JID is a
configurable option. And I assume that the pubsub node is equivalent
to the 128 octet VPN ID. But neither seems to be spelled out clearly
(unless I'm overlooking it) and in any case there don't seem to be any
discussions of error handling. (In fact, the only comment I can find
on the 'node' value suggests vaguely that perhaps all values are
implicitly correct, in which case there needs to be some additional
text about troubleshooting.)
Third, the schema offers three different encap types including GRE,
UDP, and VXLAN. I believe that the GRE and UDP options are meant to be
MPLS in {GRE, UDP} in which cases I think the 'label' element provides
adequate information for the encapsulation. However I can't find text
about how to construct the VXLAN encapsulation. Is it also MPLS over
VXLAN, or is the label supposed to map to the VNI? In either case I
suspect that you need a reference to something that defines the VXLAN
usage of link layer addresses, or the use of the GPE extensions, etc.
Perhaps I'm overlooking something in the text, or (even more likely)
maybe I'm just too ignorant of XMPP standards etc. If that's the case
then I hope the authors will help me understand.
Otherwise, I'm not sure that this draft is ready for Proposed Standard
publication. I suspect that it may need further review and development
in BESS.
Cheers,
-Benson
*Adrian Farrel* <mailto:[email protected]>
November 24, 2014 at 2:27 PM
This document contains a worked example using IP addresses from the
10/8 and
192.168/16 Private Use spaces.
It would be far better if the document used addresses from the three
documentation/test spaces 192.0.2/24 198.51.100/24 and 203.0.113/24
Unless you can provide a strong reason not to make this change (which
looks to
me like it would be a simple matter), please do so in a new revision
after IETF
last call.
Thanks,
Adrian
Benson Schliesser <mailto:[email protected]>
November 24, 2014 at 6:36 PM
In addition to Adrian's comment, I'm confused by a number of things in
draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04. Just picking on the big ones:
First, I think there might be a mistake in the XML examples and/or
XSD. The schema in section 11 defines a target namespace of
http://www.ietf.org/bgp-l3vpn-unicast.xsd but the examples use
http://ietf.org/protocol/bgpvpn.
Second, the document doesn't seem to provide adequate operational
guidance on how to determine the route server JID, how to determine
the correct pubsub node values, etc. I assume that the server JID is a
configurable option. And I assume that the pubsub node is equivalent
to the 128 octet VPN ID. But neither seems to be spelled out clearly
(unless I'm overlooking it) and in any case there don't seem to be any
discussions of error handling. (In fact, the only comment I can find
on the 'node' value suggests vaguely that perhaps all values are
implicitly correct, in which case there needs to be some additional
text about troubleshooting.)
Third, the schema offers three different encap types including GRE,
UDP, and VXLAN. I believe that the GRE and UDP options are meant to be
MPLS in {GRE, UDP} in which cases I think the 'label' element provides
adequate information for the encapsulation. However I can't find text
about how to construct the VXLAN encapsulation. Is it also MPLS over
VXLAN, or is the label supposed to map to the VNI? In either case I
suspect that you need a reference to something that defines the VXLAN
usage of link layer addresses, or the use of the GPE extensions, etc.
Perhaps I'm overlooking something in the text, or (even more likely)
maybe I'm just too ignorant of XMPP standards etc. If that's the case
then I hope the authors will help me understand.
Otherwise, I'm not sure that this draft is ready for Proposed Standard
publication. I suspect that it may need further review and development
in BESS.
Cheers,
-Benson
Adrian Farrel <mailto:[email protected]>
November 24, 2014 at 2:27 PM
This document contains a worked example using IP addresses from the
10/8 and
192.168/16 Private Use spaces.
It would be far better if the document used addresses from the three
documentation/test spaces 192.0.2/24 198.51.100/24 and 203.0.113/24
Unless you can provide a strong reason not to make this change (which
looks to
me like it would be a simple matter), please do so in a new revision
after IETF
last call.
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
