Jeffrey,
On 2/1/16, 2:41 PM, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[email protected]> wrote: >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. We’ll do. Cheers, Ali > >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
