Jeffrey, Thanks for the update! After having read the new draft, I completely agree.
Cheers, Andy On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 8:19 AM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang= [email protected]> wrote: > [changing subject] > > > > Hi, > > > > After filling in the signaling procedures for > draft-zzhang-pals-pw-for-ip-udp-payload, we feel that BESS is a better home > for the draft, so we rehomed it to BESS: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zzhang-bess-ipvpn-payload-only/. > > > > Of course, it still benefits discussions in PALS/MPLS WG. > > > > Thanks. > > Jeffrey > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2022 4:30 PM > *To:* Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) <[email protected]>; > mpls-chairs <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; SPRING > WG <[email protected]> > *Cc:* '[email protected]' <[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [bess] [Pals] [EXTERNAL] Re: [spring] Martini Pseudowires > and SR > > > > Regarding feature gaps, I’d like to point to > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-zzhang-pals-pw-for-ip-udp-payload-01 > for a new kind of PW. > > I had not got to socialize it in PALS/MPLS WG and will fill in the > signaling details in the next revision (yes, EVPN-VPWS type of signaling is > what I am thinking of). > > Looks like this is a good email thread to tag on for my topic. > > > > Appreciate your comments. > > > > Thanks. > Jeffrey > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* BESS <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Christian Schmutzer > (cschmutz) > *Sent:* Saturday, June 4, 2022 1:35 AM > *To:* mpls-chairs <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > SPRING WG <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [bess] [Pals] [EXTERNAL] Re: [spring] Martini Pseudowires > and SR > > > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > > > <Resending with trimmed to/cc list to try to pass the BESS recipient > restriction> > > > > On 01.06.2022, at 09:42, Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > After the initial hype for PWE3 in the early 2000s we have seen renewed > interest in circuit emulation (TDM PWE3) in 2015 as there was (and still > is) a lot of PDH and SONET/SDH infrastructure out there that operators > can’t get rid of fast enough while those products go end of life. > > > > We have invested in a modern, complete (SATOP, CESOP and CEP) and > high-density MPLS/PWE3 implementation and several operators and utilities > have deployed our solution (based on T-LDP PWE3). > > > > Having said that, many operators raised the question on “why not EVPN-VPWS > instead of T-LDP?” as they were already looking at EVPN-VPWS for ethernet > services. As we see continued interest in our circuit emulation offering > and this EVPN-VPWS question is continuously coming up I believe there is > merit in addressing TDM pseudowire setup via EVPN-VPWS. > > > > Also more recently we got requests to carry high speed “pipes” such as > 10GE, 100GE, OC192/STM64 and various FibreChannel variants in a transparent > manner which lead to our PLE data plane proposal documented in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-bess-ple > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-bess-ple__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DlYfLfhLreAoyF1YRUnoLvSQMd3DO8AOA4GFDdsQmL4gqY9Q3BySRnQHgGTXedeK_UEpQvd1hOyKvv0AF1V4NR_7RvgObuTe$> > . > > > > For PLE (being new) we looked at EVPN-VPWS to start with (instead of > T-LDP) and also already started a proposal via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-bess-ple-vpws-signalling > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-bess-ple-vpws-signalling__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DlYfLfhLreAoyF1YRUnoLvSQMd3DO8AOA4GFDdsQmL4gqY9Q3BySRnQHgGTXedeK_UEpQvd1hOyKvv0AF1V4NR_7Rn59D532$>. > The proposal is not re-inventing the wheel, rather aligning with the > concepts defined in T-LDP. We would appreciate community review and input. > > > > I think draft-schmutzer-bess-ple-vpws-signalling can address the “TDM’ish” > features while another document or updates to RFC8214 could address the > other (more generic gaps) to RFC8077 and other T-LDP RFCs. > > > > Regards > > Christian > > > > On 31.05.2022, at 18:52, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > + 1 to Sasha and Jorge > > > > The feature gaps to be addressed in BGP EVPN VPWS should be based on > operators' feedback so we add only those that are relevant. > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > > > On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 4:59 PM Alexander Vainshtein < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Jorge and all, > > Here is a (admittedly incomplete) list of things that, AFAIK, today are > not supported with EVPN VPWS: > > 1. All the non-Ethernet PW types (28 such types can be found in the IANA > registry > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters/pwe3-parameters.xhtml*pwe3-parameters-2__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DlYfLfhLreAoyF1YRUnoLvSQMd3DO8AOA4GFDdsQmL4gqY9Q3BySRnQHgGTXedeK_UEpQvd1hOyKvv0AF1V4NR_7Rqbfe_ps$> > ) > > > 1. Not sure if all these types are relevant for the industry today > 2. AFAIK, TDM and SONET over packet are still widely deployed > > > 1. Differentiation between Raw and Tagged Ethernet PW types (not sure > it is needed, but still) > 2. All Interface Attributes listed in the IANA registry with the > following exclusions: > > > 1. Interface MTU (EVPN VPWS supports a standard way to ignore it > which IMHO is one great advantage over LDP-based signaling) > 2. Flow Label (support is defined in 7432bis) > > > 1. Full-blown PW status signaling > 2. FCS retention – not sure it is used these days > 3. PW fragmentation and reassembly - not sure it is used these days. > > > > Regards, > > Sasha > > > > Office: +972-39266302 > > Cell: +972-549266302 > > Email: [email protected] > > > > *From:* Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Sunnyvale) <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, May 30, 2022 1:02 PM > *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>; Stewart > Bryant <[email protected]>; Andrew Alston - IETF <andrew-ietf= > [email protected]>; mpls-chairs <[email protected]> > *Cc:* SPRING WG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Pals] [EXTERNAL] Re: [spring] Martini Pseudowires and SR > > > > I concur with Sasha. > > We’ve been gone through a significant effort to unify the service > signaling by using EVPN. If we are missing anything in EVPN VPWS compared > to T-LDP based PWs, I would rather look at extending EVPN VPWS (if needed). > If not an option, it would good to discuss at least why EVPN VPWS is not an > option. > > > > Thanks, > > Jorge > > > > > > *From: *Pals <[email protected]> on behalf of Alexander Vainshtein < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Monday, May 30, 2022 at 10:58 AM > *To: *Stewart Bryant <[email protected]>, Andrew Alston - IETF < > [email protected]>, mpls-chairs < > [email protected]> > *Cc: *SPRING WG <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [Pals] [EXTERNAL] Re: [spring] Martini Pseudowires and SR > > Stewart, Andrew and all, > > ++ Bess WG. > > I fully agree that using (targeted) LDP for setup of Martini PWs in an > SR-based environment is quite problematic for the operators. > > > > One alternative is transition to setup of PWs using MP BGP based on the > EVPN-VPWS mechanisms (RFC 8214 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3Qviu2KUub4f1w6MeHVbgcu6H4?u=https*3A*2F*2Fdatatracker.ietf.org*2Fdoc*2Fhtml*2Frfc8214__;JSUlJSUl!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DlYfLfhLreAoyF1YRUnoLvSQMd3DO8AOA4GFDdsQmL4gqY9Q3BySRnQHgGTXedeK_UEpQvd1hOyKvv0AF1V4NR_7Ro3QiEqc$>). > > > > > These mechanisms probably require some extension to support PWs that carry > non-Ethernet customer traffic as well as support of some features that can > be signaled via LDP for Ethernet PWs but cannot be signaled today with > EVPN-VPWS (e.g., FCS retention – RFC 4720 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/32Jf7wnYMxKQPc3r3RR9Cy96H4?u=https*3A*2F*2Fdatatracker.ietf.org*2Fdoc*2Fhtml*2Frfc4720__;JSUlJSUl!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DlYfLfhLreAoyF1YRUnoLvSQMd3DO8AOA4GFDdsQmL4gqY9Q3BySRnQHgGTXedeK_UEpQvd1hOyKvv0AF1V4NR_7RrpsbXYX$> > ). > > > > My guess is that, once the basic EVPN-VPWS signaling is supported, > migration of LDP-signaled PWs to EVPN-VPWS would be simple enough. > > > > This work, if approved, would require intensive cooperation between PALS > WG and BESS WG. > > > > My 2c, > > Sasha > > > > Office: +972-39266302 > > Cell: +972-549266302 > > Email: [email protected] > > > > *From:* Pals <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Stewart Bryant > *Sent:* Monday, May 30, 2022 11:10 AM > *To:* Andrew Alston - IETF <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; mpls-chairs <[email protected]> > *Cc:* SPRING WG <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Pals] [spring] Martini Pseudowires and SR > > > > Including the PALS and MPLS WGs in the discussion. > > > > In the case of PWs, LDP runs directly between the T-PEs to provide the > control plane. If it is known that the only use of LDP is to support PW, > then a lightweight profile of LDP might be implemented, ignoring unused > parts, but this does not necessarily need a standard. > > > > Before you can profile LDP, you have to also profile PWs to determine > which subset of the PW system you need to support. The danger here is that > you end up going through the PW development cycle again as old requirements > re-emerge. > > > > Stewart > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > On 30 May 2022, at 07:22, Andrew Alston - IETF < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Sending this email wearing only the hat of a working group participant. > > > > One of the things that our network uses, and is used by so many networks > out there, are martini based pseudowires (which for clarity are generally > setup using what is described in RFC8077). In an SR world however, this > creates a problem, because typically you don’t want to run LDP in an SR > context. This means that standard martini pseudowires no longer function. > This gets even more complicated when you want to do martini based > pseudowires over an IPv6 only network, particularly considering the lack of > widespread support for LDP6. > > > > This is also relevant in cases where networks wish to run SR-MPLS in the > absence of SRv6 for whatever reason. > > > > So, my question to the working group is this: > > > > Is it worth looking at creating a form of LDP light – both compatible with > IPv4 and IPv6 – that simply exists to setup and tear down the service > labels for point to point services. A form of targeted LDP without all the > other complexities involved in LDP – that could potentially run at a lower > preference than LDP itself (so if LDP is there, use it, if not use this) > > > > Before I start drafting though, I would like to hear from the working > group if there are others who feel that this is worth doing and, call this > a call for expressions of interest in those who may be willing to work > towards something like this. Happy to take emails on list or off list and > see if we can find a solution. > > > > Looking forward to hearing from you all > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > > https://clicktime.symantec.com/3Dg1AP6FnSDeshweMg29hXi7GS?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspring > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3Dg1AP6FnSDeshweMg29hXi7GS?u=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fspring__;JSUlJSUl!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DlYfLfhLreAoyF1YRUnoLvSQMd3DO8AOA4GFDdsQmL4gqY9Q3BySRnQHgGTXedeK_UEpQvd1hOyKvv0AF1V4NR_7RmTzmP3Q$> > > > 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. > > > 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. > > > 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 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DlYfLfhLreAoyF1YRUnoLvSQMd3DO8AOA4GFDdsQmL4gqY9Q3BySRnQHgGTXedeK_UEpQvd1hOyKvv0AF1V4NR_7RoJPjo72$> > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DlYfLfhLreAoyF1YRUnoLvSQMd3DO8AOA4GFDdsQmL4gqY9Q3BySRnQHgGTXedeK_UEpQvd1hOyKvv0AF1V4NR_7RoJPjo72$> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pals mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
