Benjamin, Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my comment
resolution replies below marked with "AS>".
On 1/7/19, 9:17 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <ka...@mit.edu> wrote:
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please be consistent about (non-)hyphenation of "VPLS A-D".
AS> Done.
Is "MP2P" really an intended acronym (vs., e.g., P2MP)? It does not appear
in https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt and is not
defined, even though P2MP is, and MP2P is used some 8 times in the
document.
AS> MP2P is the intended acronym and not P2MP. The term MP2P is used
extensively in RFC 7432 which is the pre-requisite to this draft.
We probably need a definition and/or reference for "split-horizon".
AS> Added references for it.
Section 2
6. The support of All-Active redundancy mode across both (PBB-)EVPN
PEs and (PBB-)VPLS PEs is outside the scope of this document.
The claim (not quoted) of "seamless" integration seems to only hold if
All-Active redundancy mode is not in common use. Is it?
AS> All-Active redundancy is not applicable to VPLS and PBB-VPLS; therefore,
when EVPN (or PBB-EVPN) want to seamless operate with VPLS (or PBB-VPLS), then
they MUST operate in a redundancy mode that is applicable to VPLS (and
PBB-VPLS). This redundancy mode is Single-Active.
Section 3.1
In this case,
when a VPLS PE receives the EVPN IMET route, it MUST ignore it on the
basis that it belongs to an unknown SAFI. [...]
Is this "MUST" a new requirement imposed by this document, or a restatement
of an existing requirement from elsewhere?
AS> It is a new requirement.
Section 3.2
Please expand FEC on first usage (or define it in the terminology section).
AS> Added it to the terminology section.
When we talk about "learned" C-MAC addresses from traffic on VPLS PWs and
injecting those MAC addresses into bridge tables, RIB/FIB tables, and
MAC-VRFs, are these learned C-MAC addresses coming from provider-owned
equipment or customer equipment? Giving the customer the ability to inject
MAC addresses without verification would probably merit a closer look
(though I do note that the penultimate paragraph discusses the
non-propagation of the learned addresses over the control plane).
AS> The learned C-MAC addresses come from other Provider Edge devices (i.e.,
from provider-owned equipment)
Section 3.4.2, 4.4.2
My understanding was that P2MP (PBB-)EVPN tunnels are a well-understood
thing, in
which case I would expect to see something more like "this document does
not modify the operation of multicast P2MP EVPN tunnels" than "outside the
scope of this document".
AS> The MAC learning procedure from P2MP tunnels and associate them with P2P
PWs are more elaborate and then mixing them up with MP2P EVPN or P2MP tunnel in
EVPN gets even more intricate. Furthermore, there were no such requirements
from SPs.
Section 5
Does the extra state that (PBB-)EVPN PEs need to maintain (i.e., both the
normal EVPN state and PWs to the VPLS PEs) pose any risk of DoS due to
resource exhaustion?
AS> The number of resources used, is basically a function of the number of PEs
in a VPN. This number can be divided between EVPN PEs and VPLS PEs without much
impact (if any) on resource consumption.
Regards,
Ali
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
