I have following queries regarding this draft: >>>> Do we intend-to-use/call-out-usage-of “wild-card/don’t-care” values for >>>> attributes carried in the sub-TLVs ? For example, If the admin intends to check the reachability to host (MAC_X/IP_X) published (in route-type-2) by remote PE. The remote PE learnt it locally over ESI_X against Vlan X (mapped to BD_XYZ).
Is it possible, that the “EVPN MAC sub-tlv” can carry the “Route Distinguisher” and “Ethernet Segment Identifier” as don’t care. >>>> Another caseto handle would be test the reachability to tenant-VRF VRF_X >>>> (with EVPN mapped EVI) configured on the remote PE, PE1. VRF_X has no active IP/IPv6 interface configured and its sole usage is to obtain the leaked (via IVRL) routes from other VRFs (non-EVPN) and PE1 published this to other peers via EVPN control plane. Till the first prefix (learnt ) route is published (Route Type 5) by PE1 for the EVI (mapped to VRF_X), the tunnels will not be provisioned on other PEs. In order to test the reachability to VRF_X (on PE1) from another PEs, let’s say, PE2 or a centralized-controller (which can emulate/supports MPLS), It may need to carry all/subset-of attributes with “don’t-care/wild-card” in “EVPN IP Prefix Sub-TLV”. Please let know your thoughts on above. Thanks Saumya. From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2021 11:26 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05 As a WG member providing operators feedback, I agree with Ali that we should proceed with publication. I support progression of this draft. As Greg has noted that LSP OAM ping has been utilized as a critical tool for operations in data plane troubleshooting of control plane against data plane failures. This document describes a critical mechanism for operators to detect data plane failures using the same LSP ping widely used, now being applied to MPLS or SR-MPLS based NG L2 VPN EVPN & PBB-EVPN using 4 new FEC Stack Sub TLVs, EVPN MAC/IP Sub TLV for EVPN Type 2 advertisements, EVPN I-PMSI inclusive P-Tree for EVPN Type 3 advertisement, EVPN Auto discovery Sub TLV for EVPN Type 1 AD advertisement and finally EVPN IP Prefix Sub TLV for EVPN Type 5 advertisement. Kind Regards Gyan Verizon On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 5:36 PM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Matthew, my apologies for the belated response: 1. I am still awaiting a response from our product team on whether any part of the draft is supported. 2. I concur with Ali. LSP Ping is a broadly used OAM tool detecting and localizing failures, including discrepancies between the data and control planes. The document defines necessary Target FEC sub-TLVs for EVPN and MVPN cases. Regards, Greg Mirsky Sr. Standardization Expert 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division [cid:[email protected]] [cid:[email protected]] E: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn/> Original Mail Sender: JohnEDrake To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi);Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB);[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Date: 2021/08/31 11:34 Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05 _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess> Hi, I agree with Ali. Yours Irrespectively, John Juniper Business Use Only From: BESS <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi) Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 9:54 PM To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05 [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi Matthew, Some of the co-authors are on PTO and I couldn’t reach them (typical of the month of August). So, I’d like to get a bit more extension. Regarding the two questions below: 1. My company hasn’t implemented it. 2. I do think that we should process with the publication as it describes how LSP ping can be used to detect data-plane failures for various EVPN functionality including aliasing, split-horizon filtering using ESI label, multicast, l2-unicast, l3-unicast, IRB, etc. For MPLS transport tunnel, I am not aware of any other tool/draft that allows us to do data-plane failure detection. Thus, I think it is important to proceed with its publications. Still I’d like to hear from other co-authors and other people in this community. Regards, Ali From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:25 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05 WG and Authors Unfortunately I have not seen any responses indicating that there are any known implementations of this draft. I also did not see any responses to Stephane's question if we should proceed regardless. As per the BESS WG implementation policy (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw/<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw/>), please can you respond to this email indicating either: - That you are aware of any implementations (ideally providing some details) - If you are not aware of any, if you think the WG should proceed with the draft's publication and why. I will close this poll on 25th August 2021. Regards Matthew On 14/06/2021, 17:38, "BESS on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]%20on%20behalf%20of%[email protected]>> wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF. Title : LSP-Ping Mechanisms for EVPN and PBB-EVPN Authors : Parag Jain Samer Salam Ali Sajassi Sami Boutros Greg Mirsky Filename : draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2021-06-14 Abstract: LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. This document describes mechanisms for detecting data-plane failures using LSP Ping in MPLS based EVPN and PBB-EVPN networks. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping/> There is also an htmlized version available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05> A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05<https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/<ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/> _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess> _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess> -- [Image removed by sender.]<http://www.verizon.com/> Gyan Mishra Network Solutions Architect Email [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> M 301 502-1347
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
