Hi Jorge, Okay, thanks for the clarification..
Regards, Muthu On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 11:17 AM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) < jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I think the definition of Ethernet Tag in the framework draft should be > clear enough. > > There are implementations using configured IDs. > > Jorge > > > > > > *From: *Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.a...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 2:54 AM > *To: *"Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com > > > *Cc: *Jaikumar Somasundaram <jaikumar.somasunda...@ericsson.com>, " > bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, P Muthu Arul Mozhi < > p.muthu.arul.mo...@ericsson.com> > *Subject: *Re: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface > - reg > > > > Hi Jorge, > > > > For EVPN VPWS, I understand that service instance identifies are used as > Ethernet Tags in the DF election. However, for EVPN VPLS is it common to > configure anything other than the VLAN ID (VID) as the Ethernet Tag? Do we > have vendor implementations providing such an Ethernet Tag configuration > different from the VID for EVPN VPLS? > > > > Regards, > > Muthu > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:49 PM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) < > jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote: > > The Ethernet Tag that you use for DF Election does not even need to match > what you have in the data path. > > Note that the definition says even “configured IDs”. > > > > As long as you use the same ID for the BD on all the PEs attached to the > ES, you are fine. > > > > Thx > > Jorge > > > > *From: *Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.a...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5:10 PM > *To: *"Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" <jorge.raba...@nokia.com > > > *Cc: *Jaikumar Somasundaram <jaikumar.somasunda...@ericsson.com>, " > bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, P Muthu Arul Mozhi < > p.muthu.arul.mo...@ericsson.com> > *Subject: *Re: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface > - reg > > > > Thanks, Jorge. It is clear that the Ethernet Tag needs to be different > from 0 for the purpose of DF election.. > > > > One of the options a provider has for supporting untagged frames in EVPN > VPLS multihoming in VID translation...a rule to match untagged frames and > impose a VID at the ingress and another rule to match that VID and dispose > it at the egress. > > > > Are there any other options that can interop well? > > > > Regards, > > Muthu > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:11 AM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) < > jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think you should check out > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-09 > > > > This draft updates RFC7432 in certain aspects of the DF Election, and it > is already at the RFC editor. > > > > Check out the use of Ethernet Tag in the document. > > > > o Ethernet Tag - used to represent a Broadcast Domain that is > > configured on a given ES for the purpose of DF election. Note that > > any of the following may be used to represent a Broadcast Domain: > > VIDs (including Q-in-Q tags), configured IDs, VNI (VXLAN Network > > Identifiers), normalized VID, I-SIDs (Service Instance > > Identifiers), etc., as long as the representation of the broadcast > > domains is configured consistently across the multi-homed PEs > > attached to that ES. The Ethernet Tag value MUST be different from > > zero. > > > > Thanks. > > Jorge > > > > *From: *BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Jaikumar Somasundaram < > jaikumar.somasunda...@ericsson.com> > *Date: *Friday, April 5, 2019 at 6:15 AM > *To: *"bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org> > *Cc: *P Muthu Arul Mozhi <p.muthu.arul.mo...@ericsson.com> > *Subject: *[bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface - > reg > > > > Hi All, > > > > RFC7432, section 8.5, talks about DF election algorithm (service carving > algorithm) > > only for <ES, VLAN> for VLAN-based service or <ES, VLAN bundle> for > VLAN-(aware) > > bundle service. > > > > But there wont be any vlan id for untagged interface and so I wonder > > how the service carving algorithm can be applied to elect the DF. > > Also, should I use the lower VLAN ID even in the case of VLAN-bundle > > service, for electing the DF? > > > > Could some one help me to understand this please? > > > > ==========<snip from RFC 7432, section 8.5>=============== > 8.5 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7432#section-8.5>. Designated > Forwarder Election > > … > > The default procedure for DF election at the granularity of <ES, > > VLAN> for VLAN-based service or <ES, VLAN bundle> for VLAN-(aware) > > bundle service is referred to as "service carving". > > … > > Assuming a redundancy group of N PE nodes, for VLAN-based service, > > the PE with ordinal i is the DF for an <ES, VLAN V> when (V mod N) > > = i. In the case of VLAN-(aware) bundle service, then the > > numerically lowest VLAN value in that bundle on that ES MUST be > > used in the modulo function. > > … > > =========<snip end>====================================== > > > > Thanks & Regards > > Jaikumar S > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
