Hi
Just 2 comments:
“There are many ways for fixing loop and I do not see why it needs to be common
to all vendor.”
We think that’s the spirit of the standardization organizations. Operators use
to have multiple vendors in our networks, so for us, is better to have common
an uniform solutions. We think that it is also good for vendors, it saves time
to all of us.
“Having a separate draft (especially informal) allows customers to request
compliancy with…. Which I disagree.”
Regardless of if it is in a draft, in an RFC or none of them, all the RFQs for
L2VPN devices that we have been running since 2002, include mandatory
requirements for loop protection mechanisms. At the moment, we have an RFQ
open and it includes not only the funcionality of this draft but also other
loop protection mechanisms: “Port loop protection (TX and RX connection)”,
“automatic mac pinning”, “interface blocking in case of mac move situations”,
“hierarchy in the order of interface blocking”, etc…
After 17 years of experience with L2VPN services, we would never deploy a
network solution with a vendor that doesn’t implement strong loop protection
mechanisms in order to protect our customer services.
Asumming that loops are not only a problem for Telefónica, we would like to
have, at least for EVPN, the loop protection solutions included in an RFC, so
that all vendor will solve the problem in the same way.
Regards
De: Patrice Brissette (pbrisset) <[email protected]>
Enviado el: viernes, 4 de octubre de 2019 18:59
Para: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <[email protected]>;
Stephane Litkowski <[email protected]>; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Asunto: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect
This is my last email on this… looks like the message doesn’t go thru …maybe
there is a loop somewhere.
This informal draft is like a suggestion … It is about an action output of a
well document procedure in RFC7432.
A suggestion may be vendor specific or not. There is nothing for vendors to
interop with.
The fact that I’m seeing MUST in the draft and the fact it has been pushed to
EANTC, it looks to me that it is not just a suggestion.
There is kind of hidden agenda there.
I simply disagree with that. I don’t want customer to ask me if we support your
vendor specific solution.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these
forms: Segment
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> /
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>
http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn
From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 11:55
To: Patrice Brissette <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Stephane
Litkowski <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect
:-)
Patrice,
Our draft is Informational because it does not require to change the EVPN
control plane, so we thought it was the right track.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 5:17 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Stephane Litkowski
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect
Jorge,
If that is the case…since it looks like you were able to push the blackhole MAC
at EANTC (not sure what magic you have done to get privilege), why is your
draft informal?
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these
forms: Segment
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> /
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>
http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn
From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 09:20
To: Patrice Brissette <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Stephane
Litkowski <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect
Hi Patrice,
Having a common way to solve loops is beneficial for the community. And if
there are better ways, we should discuss them and maybe modify the document.
An informational draft that explains how some vendors solve this, I think, is
relevant to the WG.
There is a public report where you have proof of multivendor support.
http://www.eantc.de/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/News/2019/EANTC-MPLSSDNNFV2019-WhitePaper-v1.2.pdf
(page 11)
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:49 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Stephane Litkowski
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect
Hi,
It is difficult to argue against an informal draft since it does not provides
any obligation to any vendor to do it. There are many ways for fixing loop and
I do not see why it needs to be common to all vendor.
That said, a paragraph in RFC7432bis reminding people about the problem is a
good thing.
Having a separate draft (especially informal) allows customers to request
compliancy with…. Which I disagree.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these
forms: Segment
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> /
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>
http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn
From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 03:13
To: Patrice Brissette <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Stephane
Litkowski <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect
Hi Patrice,
Thanks for explaining.
So I think you agree with the goal behind the draft, and the fact that has to
be specified somewhere since you suggest rfc7432bis.
What you are arguing is whether it has to be in an already published document,
or a yet-to-be-published document. Sure, that should be decided by WG rough
consensus and chairs.
Some other points to your comments:
- It is informational because it does not change any control plane element
in RFC7432.
- It explains the whole mac duplication process for the benefit of the reader
- The use of Normative language can be certainly discussed
- Loops are important and we think EVPN specs are not complete without
addressing them. They can be resolved in different ways. This is an approach
that tries to have a uniform behavior across implementations. That’s why we
thought a draft was needed, and in particular, the Service Provider that
co-authors the draft thought that way.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 at 3:43 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Stephane Litkowski
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect
Hi Jorge,
As I mentioned, the draft is actually pretty thin as stated in section 4.2:
This document enhances the EVPN MAC Duplication Mechanism by extending it with
an optional Loop-protection action that is applied on the duplicate-MAC
addresses.
The document describes at glance the problem. I agree that the problem is real
and must be fixed.
However, the extension is simply an action on the MAC duplication mechanism to
install a blackhole MAC as an option.
I’m not sure why there is a need for a draft. The action can be vendor
specific. The fact that the draft is informal makes more sense. However, there
is a requirement section with *MUST* keywords…. I’m confuse about this…since it
is informal.
IMO, I would rather add a text to RFC7432bis to suggest what can be done. That
will highlight the importance of such problem.
Having too many draft dilute the strength of our work.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these
forms: Segment
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> /
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>
http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn
From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 08:37
To: Patrice Brissette <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Stephane
Litkowski <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect
Hi Patrice,
I understand that you may not support the draft.
However, it would help if you clarify the reason why:
- Is it because you don’t think loops should be protected in the way the
draft describes? If so please elaborate.
- Or is it that you do support the idea in the draft, but think that it does
not deserves its own document
- Or maybe none of them? :-)
I think it is important to clarify that on the list.
Thank you.
Jorge
From: "Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:25 PM
To: Stephane Litkowski
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect
Resent-From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Resent-To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 2:24 PM
Hi,
I do not support that draft. I think it is a very tiny minor update which can
incorporated in RFC7432bis.
Regards,
Patrice Brissette, Principal Engineer
Cisco Systems
Help us track your SP SR/EVPN Customer Opportunity/Status by filling these
forms: Segment
Routing<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/185833ace35b4894b324dfb8afbd2060> /
EVPN<https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/136bd5c3a22641bf92316523e79d6f22>
http://e-vpn.io, http://go2.cisco.com/evpn
From: BESS <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of
Stephane Litkowski <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 05:05
To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc:
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption poll and IPR poll for
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect
Hi,
The poll has ended.
I haven't seen a lot of support from the various vendor while Jorge has
mentioned that there are multiple implementations. Before closing definitely
this poll, I would like to let the opportunity to other vendors to raise their
voice and support the draft especially if they have implementations.
I will let an additional week.
Stephane
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 4:29 PM
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for
draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect-04 [1]
Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group list.
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, copying the BESS mailing list. The document won't progress
without answers from all the authors and contributors.
Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document.
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.
This poll for adoption closes on 16th September 2019.
Regards,
Stephane and Matthew
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-snr-bess-evpn-loop-protect/
[Orange logo]<http://www.orange.com/>
Stephane Litkowski
Network Architect
Orange/SCE/EQUANT/OINIS/NET
Orange Expert Future Networks
phone: +33 2 23 06 49 83
<https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%202%2023%2028%2049%2083%20>
NEW !
mobile: +33 6 71 63 27 50
<https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%206%2037%2086%2097%2052%20>
NEW !
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________
Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede
contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la
persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda
notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin
autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not
read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error and then delete it.
Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode
conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa
ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica
notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização
pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem
por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e
proceda a sua destruição
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
