[Jorge] my interpretation of RFC7432 is that IMET routes are mandatory
to enable the handling of multi-destination traffic in a BD. But in a
non-DF PE for a given ES and with no other ACs in the BD, assuming
Ingress Replication, there is no such multi-destination traffic (Tx or
Rx). So one could interpret that RFC7432 is ok with withdrawing the IMET
route in that case.
If we consider the case of all-active multi-homing, then there may well
be Tx multi-destination traffic in the scenario under discussion, as
multicast traffic from a given ES could arrive at any PE attached to the
ES, whether or not that PE is the DF.
The relevant section from RFC 7432 is:
11. Handling of Multi-destination Traffic
Procedures are required for a given PE to send broadcast or multicast
traffic received from a CE encapsulated in a given Ethernet tag
(VLAN) in an EVPN instance to all the other PEs that span that
Ethernet tag (VLAN) in that EVPN instance. In certain scenarios, as
described in Section 12 ("Processing of Unknown Unicast Packets"), a
given PE may also need to flood unknown unicast traffic to other PEs.
The PEs in a particular EVPN instance may use ingress replication,
P2MP LSPs, or MP2MP LSPs to send unknown unicast, broadcast, or
multicast traffic to other PEs.
Each PE MUST advertise an "Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route" to
enable the above. The following subsection provides the procedures
to construct the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag route. Subsequent
subsections describe its usage in further detail.
Interestingly, this says that the IMET route is mandatory to enable "the
above", where "the above" is "send broadcast or multicast traffic
received from a CE". Note it says "send", not "receive".
If P2MP tunnels are used for the BUM traffic, the IMET route is
certainly required to support all-active multi-homing. If IR is used,
or if single-active multi-homing is used, one could argue that RFC 7432
didn't really need to require the IMET route. However, it does.
[John] Wouldn’t it be better to have this draft define a bit in the
Multicast Flags extended community
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-01
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Devpn-2Digmp-2Dmld-2Dproxy-2D01&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=-DXB84eU9m4cIlq2OOcCJCQQAwJXQQswyu3F0kG0VNo&m=rs8r_tXnIDIv9e5NNgiXOy5yYuE10r6x9al8H6FgK04&s=V42kiY3ngmDNxMKmk5GgHmy9LcMGdOXpcvbereFtUR8&e=>)
indicating that that the originating PE is neither DF nor backup DF for
this broadcast domain on any ES to which it is attached? This allows us
to always advertise the IMET route and makes the situation explicit. I
think the consensus is that this situation is rare so the number of IMET
route updates shouldn’t be excessive and we could also say that this bit
is only set by EVPN DC GWs.
If it's worth doing at all, this would be a better method. Alternatives
would be omitting the PMSI Tunnel attribute, or setting the MPLS label
in the PMSI Tunnel attribute to 0.
[Sandy] We’d considered alternative methods other than withdraw, such as
extended community or something specific in PMSI Tunnel Attribute.
Withdraw/don’t advertise RT3 approach was chosen for the following reasons;
* Requires no change to protocol
Since the proposal changes the conditions under which an IMET route is
originated, it is certainly changing the protocol. (It's obvious that
the finite state machine is changed.) Perhaps what is meant is that the
protocol change is backwards compatible with systems that implement only
RFC7432. But it does not appear to be backwards compatible with systems
that have IRB, and the draft has no analysis of the impact on all the
various extensions and proposed extensions to RFC7432.
* Is computationally easier on all participating PE’s, to deal with a
simple withdraw than to look for something in an update. For
instance, on transition from BDF to NDF for example
These are of course not the only considerations.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
