OK, just published rev 07 with the latest changes you suggested. I guess it is ready from your perspective now?
Thank you, Jeffrey, for the detailed review! Jorge On 10/19/17, 1:25 PM, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[email protected]> wrote: Yup - perhaps add "since the EC could be used for other purposes". Thanks! Jeffrey > -----Original Message----- > From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) > [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 1:54 AM > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix- > [email protected]; BESS <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-05 comments > > Yes, also since the MAC is not part of the NLRI, some co-authors suggested > that. > Do you think we should add?: > “The presence of the Router's MAC EC alone is not enough to indicate the use > of the mac address as the overlay index” > > Thx > Jorge > > On 10/19/17, 4:37 AM, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are you saying that the presence of the Router's MAC EC alone is not > enough to indicate the use of the mac address as the overlay index (since the > EC was originally designed for other purpose), but the encoding of ESI and GW > IP addr in the NLRI is enough to indicate that they will be used as overlay > index? > > That makes sense, but could you clarify that? > > Thanks. > Jeffrey > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) > > [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:24 AM > > To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-bess-evpn- > prefix- > > [email protected]; BESS <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-05 comments > > > > Hi Jeffrey, > > > > Ah ok, I see what you mean. The label column is basically based on this > text in > > section 3.1: > > > > o The MPLS Label field is encoded as 3 octets, where the high-order > > 20 bits contain the label value. When sending, the label value > > SHOULD be zero if recursive resolution based on overlay index is > > used. If the received MPLS Label value is zero, the route MUST > > contain an Overlay Index and the ingress NVE/PE MUST do recursive > > resolution to find the egress NVE/PE. If the received Label value > > is non-zero, the route will not be used for recursive resolution > > unless a local policy says so. > > > > We do care about the label value since, if it is zero we know for sure, > there > > must be an overlay index. In rows 1/2/3 we do not care, since the overlay > > index indication is based on fields contained in the NLRI. > > > > Thanks. > > Jorge > > > > > > On 10/17/17, 2:18 PM, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Jorge, > > > > > > +----------+----------+----------+------------+----------------+ > > > > | ESI | GW-IP | MAC* | Label | Overlay Index | > > > > |--------------------------------------------------------------| > > > > | Non-Zero | Zero | Zero | Don't Care | ESI | > > > > | Non-Zero | Zero | Non-Zero | Don't Care | ESI | > > > > | Zero | Non-Zero | Zero | Don't Care | GW-IP | > > > > | Zero | Zero | Non-Zero | Zero | MAC | > > > > | Zero | Zero | Non-Zero | Non-Zero | MAC or None** > | > > > > | Zero | Zero | Zero | Non-Zero | None(IP NVO)***| > > > > +----------+----------+----------+------------+----------------+ > > > > > > > > The fifth row is like a variation of the fourth row; why isn't > there a > > > > corresponding variation for each of the first three rows? The > following > > > > paragraph mentioned earlier seems to apply to all situations. > > > > [JORGE] in rows 4 and 5, the label value 0 or non-0 has a meaning. > In > > the > > > first > > > > three rows, the label doesn’t have any meaning. > > > > > > Can you elaborate on "the label does not have any meaning", > especially > > for > > > row #2? > > > [JORGE] since an overlay index is used, a recursive resolution is > needed. > > Hence > > > the label is not used to forward packets. “Don’t Care” means a valid 0 > or > > non- > > > zero label value should be ignored. > > > > > > > But Row 4/5 is the same - there is a MAC address as overlay index, so: > > > > - either we "don’t care" the label for row 4/5 and just use overlay index, > or > > - do the same with for rows 1/2/3 as with rows 4/5 and do label based > > forwarding based on local policy > > > > I'm just curious why there is a difference? > > > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey > > > > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
