Thanks a lot Ali for the 03 version. This version fixs all comments raised
before and also some others e.g. df election criteria.

But unfortuatelly I have more comments, sorry abount that...
Comment 5 is a major one, others are mainly wording and typo...
======================================

1. Related with 5.1 to 5.4, I suggest rename title as below:
5.1 Single vES Failure Handling in multi-homed EVPN
5.2 Single vES Failure Handling in multi-homed PBB-EVPN
5.3 Multiple vES Failure Handling in multi-homed EVPN
5.4 Multiple vES Failure Handling in multi-homed PBB-EVPN
Reasons:
1) procedure described should applies to multi-homed active-active, we
should not say single-active, suggest use multi-homed instead
2) multiple vES failure can be caused by ENNI port/link failure, and EVC/PW
failure (even failure of one EVC fails can lead to failure of multiple
vES), but for EVPN, actually failure procedure are same.
Correspondingly some words in the content might need to be changed if we
decide to change the title.

2. 5.1 need changes from "CMAC" to "MAC". Probablly "Ethernet Segment" to
"vES" also will be better.
3. Some wording changes are needed in 5.1
[Before]
To be precise, there is no
MAC flush per-se if there is only one backup PE for a given ES -
i.e., only an update of the forwarding entries per backup-path
procedure in [RFC 7432].
[After]
To be precise, there is no per MAC basis flush, only an update of the
forwarding entries and delete the failure vES in MAC nexthop table based on
procedure in the section 8.2 of [RFC 7432].

Or at least we need to fix "per-se", anyhow it seems to be a typo..
4. Section 5.3
Router's MAC Extended Community is newly added in version-03. Before my
understanding was I should always use type 3 ESI (Port MAC address +
Discriminator) in EAD.
So the correct understanding should be: I can use any type of ESI in AD
stage, and I need to include Router's MAC Extended Community with port MAC
along with EAD, but type 3 has to be used in MASS-withdraw based on -03
version
Is my understanding correct?

5. Still section 5.3
For this part I have a concern on the mechanism to be used in PW or when
ENNI is a LAG.
When system terminate PWs and start EVPN, the ENNI will be a logical
"virtual" interface in the system and not physical interface.
This logical interface will use system mac (some people call it bridge
mac), and it will be shared by all ENNIs in the same device.
If I fill in the mass-withdraw ESI with this MAC+0xFFFFFF it will withdraw
all ENNIs on this PE even those not failed.
Same logic, when ENNI is LAG, also system MAC used.
So based on my understanding, this mechanism only works if: EVC is
terminated directly on physical ENNI.
The mechanism will not work if: EVC is terminated on LAG or PW terminated
and ENNI is logical interface.
Or we plan mac address of all logical ENNIs manually:)...
6. Small Nits in section 3.4
vc-type VLAN could lead to misunderstanding as meaning of this word differs
between vendors. Appreciate if we can use language in RFC4448 (e.g. Raw
mode)

Thanks & Regards,
Tim


On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, 06:17 Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From: *Yu Tianpeng <yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:03 AM
> *To: *Cisco Employee <saja...@cisco.com>
> *Cc: *"stephane.litkow...@orange.com" <stephane.litkow...@orange.com>, "
> bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot Ali for the updating.
>
> Looks fine for me apart from one point.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong for what mentioned below.
>
> This document aims to enable capability of evpn to be used on ENNI. But
> ENNI also have EVPL, ELAN and ETREE services.  This document have a
> brilliant solution, but overall current document only mentions usage in
> ELAN, so the question is how about ETREE and VPWS? As the solution in this
> document is vES based, I believe it should work for ETREE and VPWS without
> much extra considerations.  So if authors agree, I prefer to cover this in
> the current document. It is also fine for me if authors' choice is out of
> scope and prefer to cover other scenarios in a separate document.
>
>
>
> I have already added VPWS. However, there is no point to list every EVPN
> solution in this document or else we have to list not just evpn-etree but
> evpn-overlay, evpn-irb, evpn-mcast, evpn-fxc, etc.
>
>
>
> By the way another nits..
>
> Sub type in figure 6 is not consistent with description above. I got lost
> on this as previous version was still 0x04.. so if 0x07 is the correct one
> please fix the value in the figure
>
>
>
> That has already been corrected.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ali
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, 00:31 Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <manka...@cisco.com
> wrote:
>
> Thanks ali. I took look at the diff, it looks ok to me to move forward.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Mankamana
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)"
> <saja...@cisco.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 3:17 PM
> *To: *Tim <yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com>, "stephane.litkow...@orange.com" <
> stephane.litkow...@orange.com>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim, Mankamana,
>
>
>
> The rev02 of the draft has the updates to address your latest comments.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ali
>
>
>
> *From: *BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Tim <
> yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, January 7, 2019 at 2:53 PM
> *To: *"stephane.litkow...@orange.com" <stephane.litkow...@orange.com>, "
> bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Support this work as an individual. This document is a great and elegant
> step for EVPN towards SP network.
>
> Some small comments by the way:
>
> 1. Figure 2 shows the scope of EVPN network but the other figures in the
> document not. Please kindly update, then it is more readable.
>
> 2. There are 2 Figure 2
>
> 3. Document is lack of mention on E-Tree, it should work without any extra
> consideration right?
>
> 4. Please fix format issue in section 8 and update TBD in section 9.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On 2018/12/3 18:43, stephane.litkow...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hello Working Group,
>
>
>
> This email starts a two-week Working Group Last Call on
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment [1]
>
>
>
> This poll runs until *the 17th of December*.
>
>
>
> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to
> this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with
> IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>
> If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document please
> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
> relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from
> all the Authors and Contributors.
>
>
>
> There is currently no IPR disclosed.
>
>
>
> If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please
> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been
> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>
>
>
> We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].
>
>
>
>     Thank you,
>
>     Stephane & Matthew
>
>
>
>     [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-eth-segment/
>
>
>
>     [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to