Hi Ali, The suggested changes look good to me. Thanks Suresh
> On Jan 22, 2019, at 4:20 AM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
