Hi Lucy,
Did you take time to read
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02
Its used pretty intense by DC orchestration platforms nowadays. Section 5.1
provides more insight.
Brgds, G/
Sent using CloudMagic Email
[https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=pa&cv=8.0.55&pv=6.0&source=email_footer_2]
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Lucy yong < [email protected]
[[email protected]] > wrote:
Hi John,
Since the tunnel encap draft goes with encap tunnel attribute and there was
no
deployment of RFC5512, IMO, we should deprecate encapsulation extended
community
to keep a consistent method.
Thus, should the overlay draft states if BGP tunnel encapsulate attribute
is not
present, ....
Regards,
Lucy
-----Original Message-----
From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 10:46 AM
To: John E Drake; [email protected]
Cc: IDR; Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Eric Rosen
Subject: Re: [bess] One question about 'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'
and
draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-00
John,
(Cc'ing IDR.)
2015-11-13, John E Drake:
>
> I spoke with Eric and Ali and we would like to change both the overlay
> draft and the tunnel encaps drafts as follows.
>
> For the overlay draft, replace this text in section 5.1.3:
>
> "If the BGP Encapsulation extended community is not present, then
> thedefault MPLS encapsulation or a statically configured encapsulation
> is
> assumed."
>
> With the following:
>
> "Note that the MPLS encapsulation tunnel type is needed in order to
> distinguish between an advertising node that only supports non-MPLS
> encapsulations and one that supports MPLS and non-MPLS encapsulations.
> An advertising node that only supports MPLS encapsulation does not
> need to advertise any encapsulation tunnel types; i.e., if the BGP
> Encapsulation extended community is not present, then either MPLS
> encapsulation or a statically configured encapsulation is assumed."
Having more text to explain things in the overlay draft does not hurt.
>
> For the tunnel encaps draft, replace this text in section 5:
>
> "If the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute contains several TLVs (i.e.,
> ifit specifies several tunnels), router R may choose any one of those
> tunnels, based upon local policy. If any of tunnels' TLVs contain the >
Color
sub-TLV and/or the Protocol Type sub-TLV defined in [RFC5512], the
> choice of tunnel may be influenced by these sub-TLVs."
>
> With the following:
>
> "If the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute contains several TLVs (i.e.,
> ifit specifies several tunnels), router R may choose any one of those
> tunnels, based upon local policy. If any of tunnels' TLVs contain the
> Color sub-TLV and/or the Protocol Type sub-TLV defined in [RFC5512],
> the choice of tunnel may be influenced by these sub-TLVs. Note that if
> none of the TLVs specifies the MPLS tunnel type, a Label Switched Path
> SHOULD NOT be used unless none of the TLVs specifies a feasible tunnel."
I think that the above will technically work.
*However* it would be a pity to *not* have the very useful clear-text
explanation of the reason for the 'MPLS' type (what you propose to add
above in
the overlay draft) in draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-00... why provide the
smooth
explanation for only one of the specs to which this 'MPLS' type applies ?
>
> We hope this is satisfactory.
Close, but not quite there yet :)
Best,
-Thomas
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Morin [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:08 AM
>> To: John E Drake; [email protected]
>> Cc: Eric Rosen
>> Subject: Re: [bess] One question about
'draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-02'
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> 2015-11-12, John E Drake:
>>>
>>> Why do you think it should be documented in Eric's draft rather than
>>> in the
>> EVPN Overlay draft?
>>
>> The issue applies beyond the context of E-VPN overlay specs, and
>> exist in any context where different kinds of MPLS(/x) encaps can be
>> mixed (E-VPN non-overlay, IP VPNs), which is addressed by Eric's draft.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -Thomas
>
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
exploites
ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur,
veuillez
le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline
toute
responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed,
used
or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
