Hi Sasha, Bob, In the following text:
… In case of IR with MPLS unicast tunnels, VH1 must advertise different labels to different PEs, so that it can identify the sending PE based on the label in the traffic from a V-spoke. That “to” should be changed to “for”. Different labels are advertised in a PE Distinguisher (PED) label attribute, as explained in the third paragraph: Notice that an "upstream-assigned" label used by a V-hub to send traffic with on a P2MP tunnel to identify the source V-spoke is the same "downstream-assigned" label used by the V-hub to receive traffic on the IR tunnel from the V-spoke. Therefore, the same PED Label attribute serves two purposes. Jeffrey Juniper Business Use Only From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 12:37 PM To: [email protected]; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: [bess] Hub-and-spoke support in EVPN: RFC 8317vs.draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Bob, Jeffrey and all, Regarding the question “How does VH1 advertise many labels to a single RR with the same NLRI?” – my guess (FWIW) is that: 1. With IR each V-Spoke advertises its Type 3 EVPN route to V-Hub, so that V-Hub is explicitly aware of each of its associated V-Spokes 2. V-Hub can then advertise the Unknown MAC Route (UMR) with the same MAC address (00:00:00:00:00:00) but different IP addresses. in the Type 2 EVPN routes (and different labels allocated per associated V-Spoke). As a consequence, these routes would have different NLRI and will all pass the RR. * One possibility is to use the IP address that identifies the specific V-Spoke in the Type 3 EVPN route. In this case V-Spoke would receive all such routes but select one that its own IP address * A better possibility would be for the V-Spoke to allocate a Route Import Extended Community as defined in Section 7 of RFC 6514 and attach it to the Type 3 EVPN route it advertises. In this case V-Hub would allocate a dummy IP address (say from /127 subnet) per each associated V-Spoke, use it in the UMR with the label for this V-Spoke and attach the Route Import Extended Community advertised by the specific V-Spoke to the UMR that is intended for this V-Spoke. Neither of these options has been explicitly defined in the Virtual Hub and Spoke in EVPN<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-hub__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WKVkJ-irCOyTVP5djlQuIzgfXg66-SyCjLFitEIGM_8Xoc5v-qkB1_b0yaQUB5zS$> draft, and the draft has expired. My 2c, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> From: BESS <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2020 6:39 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [bess] Hub-and-spoke support in EVPN: RFC 8317vs.draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04 Hi Jeffrey, Maybe I was confused by the last mail. Let's discuss it on the basis of the text of the [EVPN Virtual Hub] draft. In section 7.1, it says that: In case of IR with MPLS unicast tunnels, VH1 must advertise different labels to different PEs, so that it can identify the sending PE based on the label in the traffic from a V-spoke. I don't understand that sentence in the following questions: 1) How does VH1 advertise many labels to a single RR with the same NLRI? 2) How does the RR recognise that each (instead of only the recent one) of these labels should be reflected? 3) Will the RR reflect all these labels to all V-Spokes? 4) Will each of the V-Spokes receive only the exact one (which is allocated for that V-spoke by the VH1) of these labels from the same RR? Thanks, Bob 原始邮件 发件人：Jeffrey(Zhaohui)Zhang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 收件人：王玉保10045807;[email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 抄送人：张征00007940;陈然00080434; 日 期 ：2020年08月21日 23:33 主 题 ：RE: Re:Hub-and-spoke support in EVPN: RFC 8317vs.draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04 Hi Bob, * *If* the AR REPLICATOR behaviors are removed from that draft,I think the hub/spoke scenario can't be well supported because that the RRs are widely used. What do you mean by *if* in the above statement? It is the designed behavior with hub and spoke scenario – with that do you still think there is a problem? RR is only used for route distribution and should not make any difference. Thanks. Jeffrey Juniper Business Use Only From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 9:52 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[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:Hub-and-spoke support in EVPN: RFC 8317 vs.draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Jeffrey and Sasha, The flows of E-tree services typically are P2MP conections, But the flows of hub/spoke services typically are MP2MP connections, the spoke PEs can connect to each other under the assistance of the hub PE. The hub/spoke services is actually a special pattern of VPLS, whose MP2MP nature will be persisted. So they are very different as what Jeffrey has pointed out. But the hub/spoke secenario is very similar to the AR REPLICATOR/LEAF, IMHO. And draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-hub already applied a certain extent of AR REPLICATOR behaviors to the hub PEs. The only issues remained in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-hub is that when RRs exists between hub-PE and spoke-PEs. If the AR REPLICATOR behaviors are removed from that draft, I think the hub/spoke scenario can't be well supported because that the RRs are widely used. and the AR REPLICATOR behaviors will still be required even if there are no RRs. And I think the approaches discribed in draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04 can solve the problems caused by RR existence. Best Regards, Bob 原始邮件 发件人：Jeffrey(Zhaohui)Zhang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 收件人：Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 抄送人：Michael Gorokhovsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 日期：2020年08月20日 22:46 主题：RE: Hub-and-spoke support in EVPN: RFC 8317 vs.draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04 Hub and spoke EVPN and E-tree are different. However, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-virtual-hub should address the following two at least: * MPLS EVPN can't support hub/spoke usecase, where the spoke PEs can only connect to each other through the hub PE. Especially when at least two of the spoke PEs are connected to a common route reflector. * MPLS EVPN can't work as an AR-REPLICATOR. Because the AR- REPLICATOR will apply replication for the ingress AR-LEAF too. But a packet shoud not be sent back to the AR-LEAF where it is received from. Jeffrey Juniper Business Use Only From: BESS <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 9:36 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Michael Gorokhovsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [bess] Hub-and-spoke support in EVPN: RFC 8317 vs. draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Dear authors of draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04, Section 2 “Problem Statement” of draft-wang-bess-evpn-context-label-04 states that “MPLS EVPN can't support hub/spoke use case, where the spoke PEs can only connect to each other through the hub PE. Especially when at least two of the spoke PEs are connected to a common route reflector”. I have to admit that I do not understand why support of the generic E-Tree functionality in EVPN defined inRFC 8317<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/36xQigUG4RGdoD2wAe2KZmc6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Ftools.ietf.org*2Fhtml*2Frfc8317__*3B*21*21NEt6yMaO-gk*21QRZOPg7Or-dqLm0vGwqM2vyyPBISCyDo4uu4Jq2MEDW8fuSMZV6tLNIvZnaam81J*24__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WKVkJ-irCOyTVP5djlQuIzgfXg66-SyCjLFitEIGM_8Xoc5v-qkB1_b0yR6fkr9r$> is not sufficient for handling this use case. In particular I do not see why connection of Spoke PEs to a common RR affects the EVPN behavior (or L3vPN Hub-and-Spoke VPN behavior as defined inSection 4.3.5 of RFC 4364<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3MMGdJCygJXKdNbkgQDnxRG6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Ftools.ietf.org*2Fhtml*2Frfc4364*2Asection-4.3.5__*3BIw*21*21NEt6yMaO-gk*21QRZOPg7Or-dqLm0vGwqM2vyyPBISCyDo4uu4Jq2MEDW8fuSMZV6tLNIvZunniYWF*24__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WKVkJ-irCOyTVP5djlQuIzgfXg66-SyCjLFitEIGM_8Xoc5v-qkB1_b0yZC6Hh8v$>) in any way. Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ________________________________ Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments. ________________________________
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
