Thomas, E-TREE for EVPN (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-05) will be GA this year. Root or leaf role can be defined on a port or VLAN basis, and Single-Active and All-Active multi-homing are supported. E-TREE for PBB-EVPN is on the roadmap.
Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:13 AM > To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi); Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang; BESS; > draft-ietf-bess-evpn- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree > > Hi Ali, > > I haven't started yet the shepherd write-up, but it's on my todo list. > > I will do a shepherd review along with the write-up, which may lead to > resolving points with > authors, but I can't tell before I get to do it. > > One thing that can be useful to collect right now is any information you may > have on > existing implementations (although this draft was WGLC'd before we setup BESS > one- > implementation policy, this question has been part of shepherd write-up > question, even if > its not considered a gating criteria). > > Thanks in advance, > > -Thomas > > > 2016-06-06, Ali Sajassi (sajassi): > > > > 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
