Jingrong, Please see zzh> below.
From: BESS <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Xiejingrong Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 8:14 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for early allocation request for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label Objection. Zzh> Please note that this is not a LC for the draft. This is the poll for early allocation for the DCB-flag and an extended community type. I remember I have raised my concerns, but I didn't find the response. Zzh> Sorry for missing those. Please see below. Copy the concerns I have listed before: 1. The problem stated by this draft is valid, and the proposed method is useful for some of the listed problem. For example, EVPN BUM who uses MPLS identification and dataplane. Zzh> Do you think the proposed solution is reasonable for the problems? If so, we would like to see early allocation is done. The allocation is temporary - it would time out after some time if the draft does not become a RFC. 2. EVPN BUM using vxlan/vni identification may not need a MPLS label to identify the vpn/tenant. Zzh> The draft is about "aggregation label", so vxlan/vni is irrelevant. On the other hand, in case of vxlan/vni, the VNI is no different from a DCB label in concept (so the solution of using DCB label should be reasonable). 3. For MVPN who has a UMH(Upstream Multicast Hop) selection procedure, the exist using of upstream-assigned VpnLabel can be optimized to only populate to forwarding-state when there are c-multicast flows selecting the specific UMH PE. Zzh> If that is a better solution, perhaps a separate draft can be written. The solution in this draft is simpler and in concept no different from vxlan case. 4. For an End-to-End deployment of MVPN who spans multi-ASes as the way stated in <draft-geng-bier-sr-multicast-deployment>, the allocation of a global-unique label is useful and possible. But operators may need to be very careful to allocate the very limited MPLS labels. Because, MPLS labels has been divided to SRLB and SRGB, and SRGB may have been again divided by SR-domains according to <draft-filsfils-spring-large-scale-interconnect-12>. Zzh> What's relevant here is the second part of your text above (the "But operators ...") - though that is the same point #5 below (please see my response below). 5. For segmented MVPN deployment, the further divide of the MPLS Label is also difficult when thinking of the above. Zzh> Please see section 2.2.2 of this draft. 6. For BIER, is the BIER proto=1 indicating a BIER-specific unique VpnLabel ? or a Per-platform (RFC5331) downstream-assigned unique label ? if it is the later one, how about adding a new BIER proto value to indicating a BIER-specific unique VpnLabel ? And then a static Context (BIER) can be optional to the dynamic advertising of a Context ? Zzh> In BIER header, proto=1 indicates downstream-assigned label. There is no need to define a new BIER specific proto value. The reason is that "downstream-assigned label" just means that it is a label in the "main/default" label space of the receiving router, and a DCB label is just that. Nothing is BIER specific here. I believe Tony also responded to you (and in BIER WG). Zzh> Thanks! Zzh> Jeffrey Jingrong From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 11:10 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [bess] Poll for early allocation request for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label Hi WG, We have received an early allocation request for the draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-aggregation-label. Please raise your concerns if you object to this request and if you think that the document is not mature enough. Feel also free to support this request. We will wait until next Monday (12/17) to gather feedbacks. Thanks, Stephane _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
