Hi Sasha, The document explicitly mentions single-active and all-active. Maybe we can add a sentence saying that those are the two multi-homing modes addressed by the spec. I don’t think we should mention anything else?
Thanks. Jorge From: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 11:36 PM To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com> Cc: Luc André Burdet <laburdet.i...@gmail.com>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, Nitsan Dolev <nitsan.do...@rbbn.com>, Alexander Ferdman <alexander.ferd...@rbbn.com>, Ron Sdayoor <ron.sday...@rbbn.com>, Dmitry Valdman <dmitry.vald...@rbbn.com>, draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org <draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: A doubt about draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05 Hi Ali, Lots of thanks for a prompt response and my sincere apologies for a much-delayed response. Your response matches my understanding. May I suggest that, since draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05<https://clicktime.symantec.com/15siKyXAKWkixmcG2nv1Y?h=ewnEsUd2iE4xin3_mbyooIY1ENSU7btYKRsi0Xr6wM8=&u=https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05> is not intended for use with single flow-active multi-homing, this would be explicitly stated in the next revision of the draft? Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 5:49 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>; draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org Cc: Luc André Burdet <laburdet.i...@gmail.com>; bess@ietf.org; Nitsan Dolev <nitsan.do...@rbbn.com>; Alexander Ferdman <alexander.ferd...@rbbn.com>; Ron Sdayoor <ron.sday...@rbbn.com>; Dmitry Valdman <dmitry.vald...@rbbn.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: A doubt about draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05 Hi Sasha, EVPN based RFCs (7432 and 8365) define two types of multi-homing: All-Active and Single-Active. Both of these multi-homing mechanism relies on multi-homing PEs to control loop detection and prevention using DF election and split-horizon filtering. draft-ietf-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-02<https://clicktime.symantec.com/15siF9Ksru58YpnLVEWrv?h=gJyaiM0MQ9etseWoNrSRgEXyb9bM6DrwLUAnALqYv_g=&u=https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-02> introduces a 3rd multi-homing mechanism called Single-Flow-Active for scenarios where loop detection and prevention are performed by CE devices (running L2GW protocols) and not PEs. draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05<https://clicktime.symantec.com/15siKyXAKWkixmcG2nv1Y?h=ewnEsUd2iE4xin3_mbyooIY1ENSU7btYKRsi0Xr6wM8=&u=https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05> basically extends the baseline multi-homing mechanism of All-Active to L3 use cases mentioned in the draft (e.g., symmetric IRB). This draft is NOT intended for Single-Flow-Active multi-homing use case. If single-flow-active multi-homing need to get extended to L3 use cases, then it can be covered in a follow-up single-flow-active draft. Cheers, Ali From: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com<mailto:alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>> Date: Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 2:25 AM To: draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org> <draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-alias...@ietf.org>> Cc: Luc André Burdet <laburdet.i...@gmail.com<mailto:laburdet.i...@gmail.com>>, bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, Nitsan Dolev <nitsan.do...@rbbn.com<mailto:nitsan.do...@rbbn.com>>, Alexander Ferdman <alexander.ferd...@rbbn.com<mailto:alexander.ferd...@rbbn.com>>, Ron Sdayoor <ron.sday...@rbbn.com<mailto:ron.sday...@rbbn.com>>, Dmitry Valdman <dmitry.vald...@rbbn.com<mailto:dmitry.vald...@rbbn.com>> Subject: A doubt about draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05 Hi, I have doubts regarding applicability of the solution for L3 fast convergence defined in draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05<https://clicktime.symantec.com/15siKyXAKWkixmcG2nv1Y?h=ewnEsUd2iE4xin3_mbyooIY1ENSU7btYKRsi0Xr6wM8=&u=https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-ip-aliasing-05> for the scenarios in which the MH ES in question operates in Single Flow-Active load-balancing mode as described in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-02<https://clicktime.symantec.com/15siF9Ksru58YpnLVEWrv?h=gJyaiM0MQ9etseWoNrSRgEXyb9bM6DrwLUAnALqYv_g=&u=https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-l2gw-proto-02>. These doubts are based on the fact that, in Single Flow-Active load-balancing mode, the Primary PE is defined by the Layer 2 Control Protocol (or its equivalent) for each specific host, while the EVPN IP Aliasing draft advertises Primary/Backup paths via P/B bits in the EVPN Layer 2 Extended Community attached to the IP A-D EVPN routes. What, if anything, did I miss? Your feedback would be highly appreciated. Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha 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 BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
