Hi Ali,
  The suggested changes look good to me.


> On Jan 22, 2019, at 4:20 AM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Suresh,
> Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my replies below 
> marked with "AS>".
> ´╗┐On 1/9/19, 8:03 PM, "Suresh Krishnan" <sur...@kaloom.com> wrote:
>    Suresh Krishnan 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/
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    * Section 3.3 MAC Mobility
>    The handling of MAC mobility between the EVPN and VPLS PEs seems a bit, 
> for a
>    lack of a better term, "not seamless" to me. While only using EVPN a MAC 
> that
>    has moved will get propagated out without *initiating* any sort of BUM 
> traffic
>    itself as described Section 15 of RFC7432. If I understand this document
>    correctly, if a MAC moves onto a segment with a VPLS PE, traffic towards it
>    will be blackholed until it initiates BUM traffic which is not the case 
> when
>    the MAC moves between EVPN PEs. Did I get this right? If so, I think this
>    limitation needs to be highlighted a bit more prominently.
>  AS>  Section 3.3 describes two MAC move scenarios: move from EVPN PE to VPLS 
> PE (1st para) and move from VPLS PE to EVPN PE (2nd para). In the first 
> scenario, it says that if the moved MAC address doesn't initiate any BUM 
> traffic (it only initiates known unicast traffic), then there can be 
> black-holing for both EVPN and VPLS PEs. However, for the 2nd scenario, the 
> black-holing can happen only for VPLS PEs. To clarify this point further, I 
> added a sentence to each of the paragraph. 
> 1st para: Such black-holing happens for traffic destined to the moved C-MAC 
> from both EVPN and VPLS PEs.
> 2nd para: Such black-holing happens for traffic destined to the moved C-MAC 
> for only VPLS PEs but not for EVPN PEs.
> Cheers,
> Ali

BESS mailing list

Reply via email to