Hi Adam, Please refer to my replies inline.
On 9/13/17, 6:19 PM, "Adam Roach" <[email protected]> wrote: >Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree-13: No Objection > >When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >introductory paragraph, however.) > > >Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > >The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree/ > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >COMMENT: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Section 3.3.2 says: > > The PEs implementing an E-Tree service need not perform MAC learning > when the traffic flows between Root and Leaf sites are mainly > multicast or broadcast. > >Does this mean to say "mainly"? I would have expected "only", as in >section >4.3. In particular, if "mainly" is correct, I'm unsure how unicast >traffic is >supposed to be handled. Is it simply flooded out (modulo filters) in the >same >way as broadcast traffic? If that's the intention, I think some >additional text >here saying as much would be useful. Ali> Added the following sentence: Ali> "In such scenarios, the small amount of unicast traffic (if any) is sent as part of BUM traffic." > >---- > >Section 5.1: > > The reserved bits SHOULD be set to zero by the transmitter and SHOULD > be ignored by the receiver. > >The "SHOULD" here seems that it might make assigning meaning to these >bits in >the future problematic. If implementations decide to either assign local >meaning to these bits, or decide that they don't need to be initialized, >then >future IETF specs that try to use them might be in for some pretty nasty >deployment surprises. If these need to be "SHOULD" instead of "MUST," >please >add some motivating text to the document for the sake of people who might >want >to extend the protocol in the future. Ali> changed the second ³SHOULD² to ³MUST²: Ali > "The reserved bits SHOULD be set to zero by the transmitter and MUST be ignored by the receiver." > >---- > >The IANA handling of "Composite Tunnel" seems problematic: although >several >values in this "Reserved for Composite Tunnel" range have well-defined >values >(e.g., 0x81 means "RSVP-TE P2MP LSP with composite tunnel"), they look >unallocated/reserved in the resulting table. I think what you really want >to do >here is update the introductory text for the table to make it clear that >values >now take the range 0x00 - 0x7F and modify 0x7B through 0x7F as you've >proposed >doing. Ali> updated the section to make it more clear - please refer to rev14 of this draft. The only changes for this document is for the range of 0x7B-0xFA which was previously unassigned. The decomposition of this range is explained in the IANA section. > >On top of this, I have the same concerns as Warren does regarding the >impact of >this change on in-the-field use of experimental tunnel types. I think the >only >reasonable way to retrofit this mechanism onto the existing system would >be to >to say that the "Composite Tunnel" bit MUST be ignored for tunnel types >0x7B-0x7E, and possibly allocate some additional experimental codepoints >(e.g., >0x77-0x7A) so that people can run experiments with tunnel types that also >include composite tunnel behavior. Ali> There shouldn¹t be any impact. The current tunnel types are in the range of 0x00-0x07 [RFC7385]. The max range for the future will be in the range of 0x00-0x7A. The mirror image of this range with the composite tunnel type would be in the range of 0x80-FA. There is complete backward compatibility with existing experimental values. > > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
