Hi Yu,

From: Yu Tianpeng <yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 11, 2019 at 1:44 PM
To: Cisco Employee <saja...@cisco.com>, "jorge.raba...@alcatel-lucent.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 

Hi Ali and Stephane,
Sorry again for comment too many times at this stage. I understand LC 
officially ended (but failed), thanks for Ali’s patient.
If we check the document we still have many changes in recent days and part of 
them are real mistakes not just optimization right?

There is no “pass” or “fail” for WGLC. After WGLC ends, the editor addresses 
the comments (if any) gathered during the WGLC. So, the WG participants are 
obligated to send their comments during the two-week WGLC period.

Ali, please read comment 5 again.  TBH for the others I don’t worry too much as 
they are wording optimization to avoid confusion.
Comments below inline.

Section 5.3 clearly describes the procedure for EVCs in context of physical 
ENNI. Now if one wants to use logical ENNI (PW, or MPLS LSP), then the same 
procedure can be used for logical ENNI – i.e., using ESI type-3 for the logical 
ENNI and coloring vES by using MAC address of ENNI’s ESI as describe in section 


Thanks for understanding.

发件人: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2019年1月12日 3:50
收件人: Yu Tianpeng; jorge.raba...@alcatel-lucent.com
抄送: stephane.litkow...@orange.com; bess@ietf.org
主题: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 

Hi Stephane,

The WGLC for this draft was ended on Dec/17. Yu sent his 1st batch of editorial 
comments about 3 weeks after WGLC ended on 1/7 and I addressed them. He then 
generated a new set which I addressed them as well. He has now generated the 
third set which are mostly invalid and indicative of lack of understanding of 
RFC 7623 which is prerequisite to this draft. I am rejected this third set not 
because he keeps generating new set but because of invalidity of them which I 
explain in the text below. I want to encourage participation of new incomers 
like Yu but they should also take time to understand both IETF procedures on WG 
calls and also on RFCs related to a draft before keep generating comments.

From: Yu Tianpeng <yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com<mailto:yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 10:29 AM
To: Cisco Employee <saja...@cisco.com<mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>, 
Cc: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>" 
"bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 

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
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.

REJECTED: The current titles are correct. Please read RFC 7623. If you read it, 
you will see that All-Active multi-homing does NOT require MAC flushing !! The 
sections are about Single-Active vES and NOT single failure in vES.

[Tim]: PBB all active does not require, But EVPN 7432 requires a withdraw of ES 
or vES in this document. vES actually should follow 7432 process if only one 

2. 5.1 need changes from "CMAC" to "MAC". Probablly "Ethernet Segment" to "vES" 
also will be better.

REJECTED: The current text is correct. The first paragraph is about Ethernet 
Segment and not vES. The second paragraph is about vES and EVC !!

[Tim]: Title of 5.1 is EVPN 7432 related not PBB-EVPN, why we mention CMAC? I 
would say the description inside is confusing. Is it describing PBB-EVPN 

3. Some wording changes are needed in 5.1
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].
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..

“per se” is and adverb.

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?

REJECTED: We are talking about two different things. There is a vESI for vES 
and there is ESI for ES associated with ENNI. Bullet 1 in section 5.3 talks 
about when advertising vES you need to color them and the way to color them is 
to use Router’s MAC EC. vESI can be of any format. Bullet 2 talks about when 
withdrawing ES associated with the ENNI, then you advertise the withdraw 
message with this special ESI.

[Tim]: This is not a comment, just a question. My fault for description not 
being clear.  I am not asking to change anything,

Till 03 version, EVPN Router's MAC Extended Community is added here. Before MAC 
extended community is only mentioned in PBB-EVPN related procedure, but in EVPN 
7432 related (5.1, 5.3) this community is not mentioned.

So my understanding based  on 02 version is not correct and updated by 03 

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:)...

REJECTED: For logical interface such as RSVP-TE tunnel where it can aggregate 
many PWs, then the tunnel can be considered as ENNI and each PW can be 
considered as an EVC associated with a vES.

[Tim]: Please read the comment, the answer is not answering the concern.

The question is if ENNI is not a physical interface, the MAC address is system 
MAC and shared by multiple ENNIs. System MAC cannot be used in the procedure 
described in section 5.3 (bullet 2).

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,

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

From: Yu Tianpeng <yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com<mailto:yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 4:03 AM
To: Cisco Employee <saja...@cisco.com<mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>" 
"bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 

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.


Thanks a lot.


On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, 00:31 Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) 
<manka...@cisco.com<mailto:manka...@cisco.com> wrote:
Thanks ali. I took look at the diff, it looks ok to me to move forward.


From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
"Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <saja...@cisco.com<mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>
Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 3:17 PM
To: Tim <yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com<mailto:yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com>>, 
"bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 

Tim, Mankamana,

The rev02 of the draft has the updates to address your latest comments.


From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Tim <yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com<mailto:yutianpeng.i...@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, January 7, 2019 at 2:53 PM
To: "stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>" 
"bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for 


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.



On 2018/12/3 18:43, 
stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto: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


    [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 mailing list

Reply via email to