Hi Sandy,

Yes, you can have all remote VTEPs share the same virtual ES.  The other 
alternative is that each remote VTEP is assigned with its own virtual ES, so 
that we can achieve load balance and quick mass withdrawal when a remote VTEP 
is no longer reachable.

Thanks,
Wen

From: Sandy Breeze <sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>
Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 6:07 AM
To: Wen Lin <w...@juniper.net>, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <saja...@cisco.com>, 
"UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1...@att.com>, John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>, "Rabadan, 
Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Eric Rosen 
<ero...@juniper.net>, "Satya Mohanty (satyamoh)" <satya...@cisco.com>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on 
problem description

Hi Wen,

Yes, we absolutely need to support more than one remote VTEP in the access 
side.  As for how to deal with one or more than one remote VTEP, I don’t agree 
it’s quite the same as one CE vs more than one CE.  For a single VNI in a BD, 
we should treat this as a single virtual ES in a BD, regardless of how many 
remote VTEPs there are participating in it.  This is treated differently to 
multiple CE on a BD, because multiple CE might imply multiple ES’s.

Cheers
Sandy

On 03/04/2018, 19:01, "Wen Lin" <w...@juniper.net<mailto:w...@juniper.net>> 
wrote:

The question is, in general,  whether we need to support more than one remote 
VTEP in this type of use case when VXLAN is used on the access side?   I think 
the answer is yes.

So the question about how to deal with “one remote VTEP verses more than one 
remote VTEP” is logically the same as “one CE verses more than one CE”.

Thanks,
Wen


From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" 
<saja...@cisco.com>
Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 at 2:54 PM
To: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1...@att.com>, John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>, 
"Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Eric 
Rosen <ero...@juniper.net>, Sandy Breeze <sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>, "Satya 
Mohanty (satyamoh)" <satya...@cisco.com>
Cc: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <saja...@cisco.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on 
problem description

Hi Jim,

Draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt is for a very specific use case and that use 
case is described in section 4.4 of draft-ietf-bess-dci-evpn-overlay. The 
solution for optimization for this use case could have been covered either in 
igmp-mld-proxy draft itself or it could be covered in a separate draft. I 
suggested it to be covered in a separate draft because I wasn’t keen in adding 
a new section to igmp-mld-proxy given that it is getting ready for WG LC. 
However, if people think it should be covered in igmp-mld-proxy draft then we 
can take that under consideration.

The interconnect of L2 to IRB/L3 core will be covered in the corresponding IRB 
mcast drafts.

Cheers,
Ali

From: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1...@att.com>
Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM
To: Cisco Employee <saja...@cisco.com>, John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>, 
"Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Eric 
Rosen <ero...@juniper.net>, Sandy Breeze <sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>, "Satya 
Mohanty (satyamoh)" <satya...@cisco.com>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on 
problem description

Ali,

                So, is this going to be a family of drafts dealing with 
inter-connection aspects across a set of use cases ? Would it be useful to 
right up a requirements draft like we did with EVPN??

Thanks,
                Jim Uttaro

From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 1:20 PM
To: UTTARO, JAMES <ju1...@att.com>; John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net>; Rabadan, 
Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>; Eric Rosen 
<ero...@juniper.net>; Sandy Breeze <sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>; Satya Mohanty 
(satyamoh) <satya...@cisco.com>
Cc: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on 
problem description

Hi Jim,

draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt will focus on L2 only between EVPN overlay 
(VxLAN) access domain and EVPN MPLS core. Connectivity EVPN IRB core (or EVPN 
L3 core) will be covered in the other drafts that I mentioned below because 
they are  already doing it for other use cases.

Cheers,
Ali

From: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1...@att.com<mailto:ju1...@att.com>>
Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 at 10:03 AM
To: Cisco Employee <saja...@cisco.com<mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>, John E Drake 
<jdr...@juniper.net<mailto:jdr...@juniper.net>>, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - 
US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>, 
Eric Rosen <ero...@juniper.net<mailto:ero...@juniper.net>>, Sandy Breeze 
<sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net<mailto:sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>>, "Satya Mohanty 
(satyamoh)" <satya...@cisco.com<mailto:satya...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on 
problem description

Ali,

                So is the plan to incorporate Sandy’s work in these docs??

Thanks,
                Jim Uttaro


From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 11:55 AM
To: UTTARO, JAMES <ju1...@att.com<mailto:ju1...@att.com>>; John E Drake 
<jdr...@juniper.net<mailto:jdr...@juniper.net>>; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - 
US/Mountain View) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>; 
Eric Rosen <ero...@juniper.net<mailto:ero...@juniper.net>>; Sandy Breeze 
<sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net<mailto:sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>>; Satya Mohanty 
(satyamoh) <satya...@cisco.com<mailto:satya...@cisco.com>>
Cc: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) 
<saja...@cisco.com<mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on 
problem description


Hi Jim,

Wrt multicast for L2 EVPN<-> L3 EVPN, that should be covered in corresponding 
EVPN multicast drafts:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-00<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Devpn-2Dirb-2Dmcast-2D00&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3qhKphE8RnwJQ6u8MrAGeA&m=9SAgBpjkWp7kuXpNCFnHc0yYR4z5MDVrwDCLAD0vsGE&s=Ek3T8FismWFOPCcpsLXCVErB9uzwJ3Y1w9N_553cDtE&e=>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-mvpn-seamless-interop-00<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dsajassi-2Dbess-2Devpn-2Dmvpn-2Dseamless-2Dinterop-2D00&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3qhKphE8RnwJQ6u8MrAGeA&m=9SAgBpjkWp7kuXpNCFnHc0yYR4z5MDVrwDCLAD0vsGE&s=YtlZmFFol1NiX2LvH9SsVJuAZks-JdhzptPE0JZOdeU&e=>

I will update my draft to address Eric’s comments as well as capture the L2 
EVPN <-> L3 EVPN explicitly in a few weeks.

Cheers,
Ali

From: "UTTARO, JAMES" <ju1...@att.com<mailto:ju1...@att.com>>
Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 at 6:25 AM
To: Cisco Employee <saja...@cisco.com<mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>, John E Drake 
<jdr...@juniper.net<mailto:jdr...@juniper.net>>, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - 
US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>, 
Eric Rosen <ero...@juniper.net<mailto:ero...@juniper.net>>, Sandy Breeze 
<sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net<mailto:sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>>, "Satya Mohanty 
(satyamoh)" <satya...@cisco.com<mailto:satya...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on 
problem description

All,

                Should we expand this conversation to a L2 EVPN<-> L3 EVPN 
space? IOW do we want to tackle this once and for all..

Thanks,
                Jim Uttaro

From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 12:54 AM
To: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net<mailto:jdr...@juniper.net>>; Rabadan, 
Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) 
<jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>; Eric Rosen 
<ero...@juniper.net<mailto:ero...@juniper.net>>; Sandy Breeze 
<sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net<mailto:sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>>; Satya Mohanty 
(satyamoh) <satya...@cisco.com<mailto:satya...@cisco.com>>
Cc: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com<mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>; 
bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on 
problem description


I had some further discussions with the authors of the draft and we have 
reached the following conclusions:

1)       The solution that they will capture in their draft will be based on 
option-A which is:
a.       Enable DF election on per mcast flow – this gives the best 
load-balancing for DF election among multicast flows and avoids FAT VLAN issue
b.       Enable IGMP proxy and SMET route – avoid unnecessary 
replication/transmission of mcast flows over core
2)       They will re-spin their draft as informational and capture their use 
case along with the requirements and the solution
3)       We will need to update the text in per-mcast-flow-df-election draft, 
igmp-mld-proxy draft, and pim-proxy draft to capture vES in addition to ES and 
in future drafts, we should make sure that both ES and vES are captured

Cheers,
Ali

From: John E Drake <jdr...@juniper.net<mailto:jdr...@juniper.net>>
Date: Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM
To: Cisco Employee <saja...@cisco.com<mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
<jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>, Eric Rosen 
<ero...@juniper.net<mailto:ero...@juniper.net>>, Sandy Breeze 
<sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net<mailto:sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>>, 
"bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on 
problem description

Ali,

I don't mean to quibble but your option A also requires all PEs to be upgraded. 
 However, it's both a more mainstream upgrade and a better solution than the 
Sandy/Satya proposal.

Also, as we discussed last week, the SMET processing already includes what 
Sandy/Satya proposal wants to do.   I.e., when  a PE is no longer the DF on any 
of the ESes to which it is attached it withdraws its SMET routes.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 24, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) 
<saja...@cisco.com<mailto:saja...@cisco.com>> wrote:

Hi Jorge,

As I pointed out in my previous email, the use of flag is not a viable option 
because it requires update to every single PE for it to be effective. Before 
getting too much into a new solution with many restrictions, we should evaluate 
the current mechanisms and if they fall short, then discuss new mechanism. In 
one of my emails (which got sent out of order because the connection on the 
plane is very slow), I talked about option-A:

The best solution for your use case is (option-A):
a.       Enable DF election on per mcast flow – gives the best load-balancing 
for DF election among multicast flows and avoids FAT VLAN issue
b.       Enable IGMP proxy and SMET route – avoid unnecessary 
replication/transmission of mcast flows over core

Cheers,
Ali

From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
"Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
<jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>
Date: Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 3:58 AM
To: Eric C Rosen <ero...@juniper.net<mailto:ero...@juniper.net>>, Sandy Breeze 
<sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net<mailto:sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>>, 
"bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on 
problem description

Eric, as discussed and you point out, one can easily interpret that IMET is not 
mandatory in some cases where multi-destination traffic is not needed. In any 
case, whether this document is Informational or Standards Track is probably not 
that important.

If this had to be done, out of the options you list, I think omitting the PTA 
would not be backwards compatible since the use of PTA is a MUST in RFC7432, so 
RRs wouldn’t like it. Maybe label zero could cause issues too. So maybe a flag 
is the least disruptive one if the document has to modify something.

I still think it may be better to proceed with the IMET withdraw procedure and 
clarify that it is only valid for:
a) BUM traffic in IR cases
b) BDs with no igmp/mld/pim proxy
c) BDs with no OISM or IRBs
d) BDs with I-ES associated to overlay tunnels and no other ACs

And any other restrictions/caveats we may need to add.

My 2 cents.
Jorge


From: Eric C Rosen <ero...@juniper.net<mailto:ero...@juniper.net>>
Date: Friday, March 23, 2018 at 5:00 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
<jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>, Sandy Breeze 
<sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net<mailto:sandy.bre...@eu.clara.net>>, 
"bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-mohanty-bess-evpn-bum-opt-00 - clarification on 
problem description

[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
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bess&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CRB2tJiQePk0cT-h5LGhEWH-s_xXXup3HzvBSMRj5VE&m=OdMuRFQV6omnCDf3TmywTtn1VPIRaTJK4ryi6yVwveE&s=QAWt42753vZzfOQ0mJP32Xk-D7_QwwEloKLv2jirKNg&e=
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to