Hi,

> In that case, two PEs in the same ES supporting type=255 should rely on local 
> policy to decide what to.
If type=255 is used, the local policy should be applied and it becomes the job 
of the operator to ensure that the policy is the same everywhere.

> And two PEs in the same ES supporting different types should revert back to 
> type=0 (RFC7432).  
Yes that sounds reasonable as this is the only behavior in common.

Brgds,


-----Original Message-----
From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) 
[mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 09:40
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df.auth...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df

Hi Stephane,

When a new type comes up, we normally encourage people to publish a draft and 
register a temporary type with IANA, so that others can interop. Having said 
that, I think your idea is good and we could reserve type=255 for 
vendor-specific or experimental purposes, so that people can use it prior to 
writing a draft and request a normal type.

In that case, two PEs in the same ES supporting type=255 should rely on local 
policy to decide what to. And two PEs in the same ES supporting different types 
should revert back to type=0 (RFC7432).  

Thank you.
Jorge


-----Original Message-----
From: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" <stephane.litkow...@orange.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 9:17 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, 
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df.auth...@ietf.org" 
<draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df.auth...@ietf.org>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df

    Hi Jorge,
    
    This perfectly fills my comment.
    Speaking as doc shepherd and WG member, I think it could make sense to have 
a vendor specific DF election type allocated. This would allow a vendor to 
develop a specific algorithm to address a niche use case, not supported by 
other vendors.
    
    What do you think ?
    
    Thanks,
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) 
[mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com] 
    Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 07:38
    To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS; 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df.auth...@ietf.org
    Cc: bess@ietf.org
    Subject: Re: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df
    
    Hi Stephane,
    
    We'll modify the text based on your comments below.
    
    Also for the benefit of the entire WG, based on Stephane's (and others) 
feedback, we will add an indication of the support of the ac-df draft in the DF 
Election extended community. The DF Election extended community is used by a 
number of drafts, so it is important that the WG is aware of this. The proposed 
encoding of the DF Election extended community is as follows:
    
     
       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(0x06)|   DF Type     | Bitmap        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  Reserved = 0                 |    DF Preference (2 octets)   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
    Where the following fields are defined as follows:
     
    o DF Type can have the following values already used in some drafts:
       - Type 0 - Default, mod based DF election as per RFC7432.
       - Type 1 - HRW algorithm as per [DF Election draft]
       - Type 2 - Preference algorithm [Preference draft]
       - Type 3 - BW DF Election [BW DF election draft]
     
    o Bitmap field defines 'capabilities' that may be supported with multiple 
types. Some examples already used in some drafts:
        ·Bit 24 – DP (don’t preempt – Pref draft)
        ·Bit 25 – AC-influenced Election (ac-df draft)
        ·Bit 26 – handshake (handshake draft)
    
    o The DF Type determines if the reserved fields are used or not. For 
example, if DF type=2, the last 2 octets will encode the preference value used 
in the preference draft.
      
    The DF Election extended community will be defined in one of the drafts 
(TBD) without defining the values above or the DF Preference. This draft will 
set up the IANA registry for DF Types and Bitmap. Then each individual draft 
will request IANA its own type or bit in the bitmap, and will specify if the 
new type or capability can be supported with other types.
    
    Please let us know if you have any feedback/questions.
    
    Thank you.
    Jorge
    
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" <stephane.litkow...@orange.com>
    Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 9:39 AM
    To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, 
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df.auth...@ietf.org" 
<draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df.auth...@ietf.org>
    Cc: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
    Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df
    
        Hi Jorge,
        
        Thanks for your answers.
        Pls find more inline [SLI2]
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) 
[mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com] 
        Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 16:20
        To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS; 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df.auth...@ietf.org
        Cc: bess@ietf.org
        Subject: Re: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df
        
        Hi Stephane,
        
        Thank you for your review.
        Please see in-line and let me know what you think.
        Thanks.
        
        Jorge
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" <stephane.litkow...@orange.com>
        Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 10:35 AM
        To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df.auth...@ietf.org" 
<draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df.auth...@ietf.org>
        Cc: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
        Subject: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-ac-df
        Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org>
        Resent-To: <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, <kiran.naga...@nokia.com>, 
<senthil.sathap...@nokia.com>, <vinod.pra...@nokia.com>, <h...@ciena.com>, 
<w...@juniper.net>
        Resent-Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 10:35 AM
        
            Hi,
            
            As shepherd of this document, please find below my comments.
            
            IMO, this is a very useful proposal. The document is quite easy to 
understand with a good illustrated example.
        
        [JORGE] that's good, thanks.
            
            Overall comments:
            - I would encourage to have an acronym section containing all 
abbreviations and the associated expansion. That could be a good best practice.
        
        [JORGE] ok, done.
        
            - I'm wondering why this document intended status is Informational. 
It looks to fill a major (IMO) miss from the basic specification and I would be 
happy to see it as a standard track document. Even if there is no protocol 
extension involved, I think that standard track could make sense. Was this 
already discussed ?
        
        [JORGE] the reasons why the authors thought of Informational were 
because a) it does not define any protocol extension and b) it is backwards 
compatible with RFC7432, in the sense that a PE supporting this document and a 
PE supporting RFC7432 could be put in the same Ethernet Segment and it would 
all work (no loops or packet duplication). That may not necessarily be the case 
with more than 2 PEs. Nevertheless the document does not recommend to do it in 
any case. I am personally happy to change it to Standards Track if the rest of 
the co-authors and the WG don't have any issues with it.
        
            - I'm not sure that we can say that this procedure is backward 
compatible. I agree that there is no protocol extension involved but as it is 
mentioned, we cannot mix PEs running the new procedure and PE running the old 
procedure. This must be ensured by the operator. Wouldn't it be better to add a 
flag/attribute to announce that a PE is capable to run this procedure ? Thus, 
when PEs run the svc carving algo, if they know that all the PEs are capable of 
this procedure, and they can all run it automatically. If there is one or more 
PE in the set that is not capable, they fallback to the regular procedure.
        
        [JORGE] As discussed above, we wanted to make it backwards compatible 
in a simple case. E.g. say PE1 and PE2 are in the same ES. PE1 supports this 
document and PE2 does not. In this case, link/node failures are covered by the 
baseline RFC7432. Logical AC failures don't change the RFC7432 overall 
behavior, for instance:
        a) a logical AC failure on PE1, will not change the DF, just like in 
RFC7432.
        b) a logical AC failure on PE2 makes PE1 take over, but, since PE2 
can't forward traffic anyway, there are no loops/duplication and everything 
works. 
        [SLI2] Being backward compatible on a simple case is IMO not enough to 
declare the solution as backward compatible. As you mentioned if more than two 
PEs are involved, we can fall into issues and human care are required. I don't 
consider this as backward compatible.
        
        
        
            - I would be in favor of having of deployment considerations 
section that deals with the backward compatibility and how to deploy the 
solution.
        [JORGE] We can add the section and the above example to clarify the 
"backwards compatibility" concept.
        [SLI2] That's good thanks. We just need to agree on the content :)
        
        
            - There are too much authors in the Author list. Would it be 
possible to reduce it ?
            
            Problem statement: 
            "an ES route withdrawn will make...".
            [SLI] I have a doubt here, would it be "and ES route withdrawal 
will make" or "a withdrawn ES route" ?
        [JORGE] fixed to "an ES route withdrawal". Thx.
            
            
            Section 2.1
            " After running the service-carving DF election algorithm"
            [SLI] Could you mention that you refer to the existing algorithm 
from RFC7432 ?
        [JORGE] done. Thanks.
            
            Section 2.2/2.3:
            - Would it be possible to collapse the two cases in a single 
procedure update ?
            - I do not like to mix examples with a procedure update 
description. I would rather be in favor of focusing on what is changing 
compared to RFC7432. For instance, "The step 3 is changed as follows:". Keeping 
the example is really good, so after describing the procedure, it makes sense 
to run it through the example.
        
        [JORGE] good point. I changed the text as follows:
        
           "For the specific case of VLAN-aware bundle services, the DF election
           will be influenced by the update/withdraw of "any" of the Ethernet A-
           D per EVI routes in the <ESI,EVI>. Step 5 and 6 in section 3.2 are
           therefore modified as follows:
        
           5. When electing the DF for a given EVI, a PE will not be considered
              candidate until "all" the Ethernet A-D per EVI routes for the
              <ESI,EVI> have been received from that PE. In other words, all the
              ACs on the <ESI,EVI> for a given PE must be UP so that the PE is
              considered as candidate for a given EVI.
        
           6. Once the PEs with missing Ethernet A-D per EVI routes for a given
              EVI have been eliminated from the candidate list, the DF Election
              can be applied for the remaining N candidates.
        
           For example, assuming three bridge tables in PE-1 for the same MAC-
           VRF (each one associated to a different Ethernet Tag), PE-1 will
           advertise three Ethernet A-D per EVI routes for <ESI12,EVI1>. Each of
           the three routes will indicate the status of each AC in <ESI12,EVI1>.
           PE-1 will be considered as a valid candidate PE for DF election as
           long as the three routes are active. If PE-1 withdraws one or more of
           the Ethernet A-D per EVI routes for <ESI12,EVI1>, the PEs in ESI12
           will not consider PE-1 as a suitable DF candidate for <ESI12,EVI1>."
        
        [SLI2] Thanks for the proposal but it does not fully address my comment.
         My point was to try to make section 2.2 and 2.3 as an update of the 
section 8.5 of RFC7432 (which step in RFC7432 procedure is modified).
        The text appears as redefining a full procedure while in reality only 
one step is modified.
        
            
            Brgds,
            
             
            Stephane Litkowski 
            
            
            
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
            
            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.
            
            
        
        
        
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
        
        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.
        
        
    
    
    
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    
    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.
    
    


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to