Ali, One more question about PBB-EVPN.
For the regular EVPN, section 3.3.2 talks about a situation where the only traffic is BUM. There is no need for mac learning in that situation. For PBB-EVPN, I assume this is also possible. With this, there is no need to advertise per-ES B-mac addresses - a single pair of global root/leaf B-mac addresses are enough. Perhaps this can be mentioned for parity/completeness. Of course, this is not a big deal and either way it's fine - but I do want to ask to confirm my understanding. Jeffrey > -----Original Message----- > From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:04 AM > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>; EXT - > [email protected] <[email protected]>; BESS <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree > > Hi Jeffrey, > > Thanks for the review. Your comments helps tighten the draft some more. I > have updated the draft and will publish it next (rev04). Majority of the > comments were editorial in nature for better clarifications. Since the > existing draft (rev03) reflects the consensus regarding our several rounds > of discussions where we have taken care of the technical items, it is > consistent with our expectation of not seeing any major issue during the > LC. Please refer to my replies in line. > > Cheers, > Ali > > > On 1/27/16, 5:26 PM, "BESS on behalf of Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > >I was involved in relevant discussions, and have reviewed once more for > >this LC. > > > >I support the publication, but with the following questions/comments. > > > >2.1 Scenario 1: Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE > > > > ... If the number of EVIs is very large > > (e.g., more than 32K or 64K), then RT type 0 as defined in [RFC4360] > > SHOULD be used; otherwise, RT type 2 is sufficient. > > > >RFC 7153 should be referenced for "Type 2". > > > Done. > > > > >Additionally, why is 32K mentioned? I can understand the 64k part. > > Removed 32K since the example is clear enough with 64K > > > > > ... the MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST be tagged with an > > indication of whether they originated from a Leaf AC or not. > > > >Perhaps change the last line to "indication if they originated from a > >Leaf AC"? Packets from a root AC are not tagged with a leaf indication. > > OK. Better yet. It should say ³indication when they originated from a leaf > AC². > > > > > Other mechanisms for identifying whether an egress AC is a root or > > leaf is beyond the scope of this document. > > > >Should "egress" be "ingress" in the above paragraph? Or simply removed? > > Nice catch! It is ³ingress². It is now corrected. > > > > > ... This Leaf MPLS label is advertised to other PE devices, > > using a new EVPN Extended Community called E-TREE Extended Community > > (section 5.1) along with an Ethernet A-D per ES route with ESI of > > zero and a set of Route Targets (RTs) corresponding to all the leaf > > ACs on the PE. > > > >Perhaps change the last sentence to "... corresponding to all EVIs that > >have leaf sites on the PE." > > The second to last sentence of section 3.2.1 says the same thing. I > changed this sentence and removed the 2nd to last sentence. > > > > >3.2.3 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a leaf AC > > > > In this scenario, it is assumed that a multi-homed Ethernet Segment > > (ES) can have a mixed of both leaf and root ACs with each AC > > designating a subnet (e.g., a VLAN). > > > >I understand that different VLANs on the same ES could be roots or > >leaves. I suppose it's more important to say that for the same vlan, > >different PEs on the same ES must have the same root/leaf designation. > > That¹s given. > > > > >Perhaps the first sentence could be reworded as the following to capture > >the above point: > > > > While different ACs (VLANs) on the same ES could have different > > root/leaf designation (some being roots and some being leaves), > > the same VLAN does have the same root/leaf designation on all > > PEs on the same ES. > > That¹s fine. It makes it more clear. > > > > >For the following: > > > > ... the PEs with Leaf sites perform MAC learning in the > > data-path over their Ethernet Segments, and advertise reachability in > > EVPN MAC Advertisement routes which are imported only by PEs with at > > least one Root site in the EVI. A PE with only Leaf sites will not > > import these routes. PEs with Root and/or Leaf sites may use the > > Ethernet A-D routes for aliasing (in the case of multi-homed > > segments) and for mass MAC withdrawal per [RFC 7432]. > > > >The above seems to contradict with the recommendation in Section 2.2. If > >the context is the scenario described in section 2.1 then that's fine, > >but the text does not have a clear context. > > Agreed. Updated the section to indicate the context is section 2.1. > > > > > > >3.3.2 E-Tree without MAC Learning > > > > The PEs implementing an E-Tree service need not perform MAC learning > > when the traffic flows between Root and Leaf sites are multicast or > > broadcast. > > > >I suppose an "only" word should be added at the end of the above sentence. > > Agreed. > > > > > > > The fields of the IMET route are populated per the procedures defined > > in [RFC7432], and the route import rules are as described in previous > > sections. > > > >The route import rules described in previous sections are for MAC routes, > >not IMET routes. Additionally, those rules may not be recommended, so > >might as well delete the last sentence. > > Changed the last sentence to ³Š, and the multicast tunnel setup criteria > are as described in the previous section.² > > > > >Section 3.3.1 talks about BUM procedures. That is not specific to 3.3.1 > >though. Perhaps extract that out to a separate section, and remove the > >BUM text from 3.3.2 as well. > > I think it is OK. > > > > > The E-TREE Extended Community is encoded as an 8-octet value as > > follows: > > > > > > 0 1 2 3 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Type=0x06 | Sub-Type=0x04 | Flags(1 Octet)| | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Reserved=0 | Leaf Label | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > >I assume the octect after the flags octet is also reserved=0. Better mark > >it as "Reserved=0". > > Agreed. > > > > >When it is used with Ethernet A-D per ES route, the leaf flag SHOULD be > >set to 0 but ignored by the receiving routers. Therefore, why not set it > >to 1 to be consistent the MAC/IP route case? > > Because the flag is used for known unicast traffic and Leaf label for BUM > traffic. We don¹t want to mix the two. > > Cheers, > Ali > > > > >Thanks. > >Jeffrey > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:51 AM > >> To: BESS <[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> Subject: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree > >> > >> Hello Working Group, > >> > >> This email starts a Working Group Last Call on > >> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree [1] which is considered mature and ready for > >> a final working group review. > >> > >> Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent version > yet > >> (-03), and send your comments to the list, no later than *February the > >> 2nd* (2016-02-02). > >> > >> This is not only a call for comments on the document, but also a call > of > >> support for its publication. > >> > >> *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that > >> applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree, to ensure that IPR has been > >> disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 > >> and 5378 for more details). > >> > >> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of > >> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree please respond to this email and indicate > >> whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Thomas/Martin > >> > >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> BESS mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > > >_______________________________________________ > >BESS mailing list > >[email protected] > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
