Hi Sasha,

Sorry for the delay, this email fell through the cracks..

Please see in-line.

Thanks for the feedback.
Jorge

From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 1:12 PM
To: [email protected] 
<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Queries on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df
Hi,
I have a few questions with regard to 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-pref-df-08>:

1.       The first statement in Section 4.4 of the draft says that  “a 
capability to NOT preempt the existing DF for a given Ethernet Tag is required 
and therefore added to the DF Election extended community”. This statement 
looks problematic to me because:

a.       Section 2.2 of RFC 
8584<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8584#section-2.2> says that “A PE 
SHOULD attach the DF Election Extended Community to any advertised ES route”

b.       To the best of my understanding, the ES route in the quoted statement 
means an EVPN Ethernet Segment (Type 4) route defined in Section-7.4 of RFC 
7432<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7432#section-7.4>

c.       The NLRI of this route does not contain information about any Ethernet 
Tag and, to the best of my understanding, just  a single copy of this route per 
MH ES to which a given PE is attached is advertised by the PE

d.       My conclusion is that non-preemption of the existing DF can be only 
advertised per ES/virtual ES and can only be applied to all EVI and all 
Ethernet tags that are attached to this MH ES.  Is this understanding correct?

                                                                                
       i.      If not, can you please clarify what I am missing

                                                                                
     ii.      If yes, may I suggest that you update the draft accordingly?
[jorge] yes, that’s a fair point. We changed the text to:
“a capability to NOT preempt the existing DF (for all the Ethernet Tags in the 
ES) is required and therefore added to the DF Election extended community.”



2.       The description of the non-preemptive DF Election procedure in item#5 
of Section 4.4. of the draft says that, upon recovery of a previously failed 
multi-homed ES, the supporting PE shall start a bott timer (or a hold timer) 
that is “applied between the INIT and the DF_WAIT states in the DF Election 
Finite State Machine described in [RFC8584]”. From my POV:

a.       This description is equivalent to introduction of a  new state in the 
DF Election Finite State Machine defined in Section 2.2 of RFC 8584
[jorge] I think the use of a boot timer is a normal practice in any multihoming 
scenario (not only EVPN based), so that the PE starts the multi-homing 
procedures only when the infrastructure protocols are up and running. As an 
example, this boot timer would prevent a PE from running DF Election and take 
over too soon, if the underlay IGP has not converged yet or BGP is still 
converging. As such, IMO it is applicable to any DF Election and not only this 
document. Maybe a topic for rfc-7432bis?


b.       As a consequence, a formal definition of the modified DF Election 
Finite State Machine should be added to the draft, preferably preserving the 
style of RFC 8584. The following points require explicit clarification IMHO:

                                                                                
       i.      In which cases the new DF Election FSM should be used (e.g., I 
assume that it should not be used if non-preemptive DF election mode is not 
configured). One scenario that deserves special attention is the scenario in 
which Non-Preemptive DF Election mode has been advertised by some, but not all 
PEs attached to the specific MH ES

                                                                                
     ii.      Whether the ES route for the recovered ES representative 
eventually should be re-advertised with the configured preference and 
configured DF mode, and, if yes, when should this happen.
[jorge] as discussed above, if the boot timer is applicable to all DF Algs (I 
think it is), that modification may belong to rfc-7432bis instead. This 
document should focus on the DF Election Algorithm details only. Also, about 
the mix of non-revertive and revertive PEs in the same ES, the text strongly 
recommends not to do that.


Your timely feedback will be highly appreciated.

Regards, and lots of thanks in advance,
Sasha

Office: +972-39266302
Cell:      +972-549266302
Email:   [email protected]


Notice: This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of 
Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates 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

Reply via email to