Hi Thomas, I just made the final edits to evpn-etree draft and published it as rev05.
Regards, Ali On 3/29/16, 2:49 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi everyone, > >This WG Last Call is now closed and the document will move to the next >steps toward publication. > >The modification mentioned below will be incorporated in next release. > >Best, > >-Thomas > > > >2016-03-15, Ali Sajassi (sajassi): >> >> 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 >>> >> > > >__________________________________________________________________________ >_______________________________________________ > >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
