Hi Thomas, Can you please progress this draft. The WG LC was completed on 3/29 and all comments except a single optional comment were addressed before the last IETF. The single optional comment was addressed couple of weeks ago and the draft was re-published then.
Regards, Ali On 5/11/16, 10:30 PM, "BESS on behalf of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > >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 _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
