We will release our code next year in-line with the draft
On 09/06/16 16:33, "BESS on behalf of John E Drake" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >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 _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
