Hi Thomas, Is there anything else you need from me or other co-authors to progress this daft? The WG LC was completed before last IETF.
Regards, Ali On 5/24/16, 12:18 AM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[email protected]> wrote: > >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
