Thanks Jorge. I get it now. On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 11:28 PM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) < jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi Anoop, > > > > Note that it is not only the ESI-based filtering procedure (for > multi-homing) that is performed using the information in the Ethernet > option TLV, but also the E-Tree flags and the BUM indication. So even if > you are using local-bias, and you are not using E-Tree, we still want the > BUM indication to avoid transient packet duplication in certain scenarios. > > > > So IMO what we want is to RECOMMEND the use of the ethernet option TLV in > all cases. > > > > Thanks. > > Jorge > > > > *From: *Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> > *Date: *Sunday, December 18, 2022 at 3:49 AM > *To: *Boutros, Sami <sbout...@ciena.com> > *Cc: *Boutros, Sami <sboutros=40ciena....@dmarc.ietf.org>, UTTARO, JAMES < > ju1...@att.com>, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Matthew > Bocci (Nokia) <matthew.bo...@nokia.com>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org > > > *Subject: *Re: [bess] [**EXTERNAL**] RE: CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and > Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03* > > Here's a proposed change: > > > > OLD > > > While "local-bias" MUST be supported along with Geneve encapsulation, the > use of the Ethernet option-TLV is RECOMMENDED to follow the same procedures > used by EVPN MPLS. > > > > NEW > > > > While "local-bias" MUST be supported along with Geneve encapsulation, the > use of the Ethernet option-TLV is required if not using local-bias and > instead following procedures used by EVPN MPLS. > > > > This allows implementations that implement only local bias to skip > sending/implementing the TLV. > > > > Or are you trying to RECOMMEND that implementations also implement the > EVPN MPLS procedures in addition to local bias? If so, I would word the > text as: > > > > While "local-bias" MUST be supported along with Geneve encapsulation and > that doesn't require the use of the Ethernet option-TLV, it is RECOMMENDED > that Geneve implementations also implement the same procedures used by EVPN > MPLS. > > > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 6:33 PM Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> > wrote: > > Sami, > > > > Why is it recommended to carry the TLV if local bias is in use? (I > understand the need for it if we're not using local bias.) > > > > Anoop > > > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 2:06 PM Boutros, Sami <sbout...@ciena.com> wrote: > > I’m not sure what tightening you are recommending, I am out of ideas of > how to tighten this, may be you can propose something. > > > > It is quite clear to me and to the authors, and I hope to everyone else, > how the TLV can be used for SH as a mechanism similar to local bias, as > well it can be used when ETREE support is needed. > > > > Thanks, > > > Sami > > *From: *Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> > *Date: *Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:25 PM > *To: *Boutros, Sami <sbout...@ciena.com> > *Cc: *Boutros, Sami <sboutros=40ciena....@dmarc.ietf.org>, UTTARO, JAMES < > ju1...@att.com>, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) < > jorge.raba...@nokia.com>, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < > matthew.bo...@nokia.com>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-gen...@ietf.org > > > *Subject: *Re: [bess] [**EXTERNAL**] RE: CORRECTION WG Last Call, IPR and > Implementation Poll for *draft-ietf-bess-evpn-geneve-03* > > Sami, > > I don't believe there was closure on this issue. > > I think the text around the option TLV being RECOMMENDED should be > tightened so that it's recommended only when needed. The way the draft is > currently written, it sounds like it is recommending that the TLV always be > carried if multihoming is in use. But this is not necessary or even > valuable if Local Bias is in use. > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 12:12 AM Anoop Ghanwani <an...@alumni.duke.edu> > wrote: > > > Hi Sami, > > > > Thanks for updating the doc. > > > > Regarding this: > > >>> > > > > I find this statement confusing > > > > > > > > While "local-bias" MUST be supported along with GENEVE encapsulation, > > > > the use of the Ethernet option-TLV is RECOMMENDED to follow the same > > > > procedures used by EVPN MPLS. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure how it helps to carry an extra TLV when it is known > > > > that its absence or presence results in identical behavior. > > > > > > > > Sami: The new TLV is not there only for local bias! It is there for bum > and leaf/root indications too. So, we can’t simply not carry it. As for the > text above, we are saying setting the ESI label in the TLV will allow us to > follow the same Split horizon behavior of MPLS-EVPN with no need for local > bias. It is true local bias must be supported but this mechanism will work > too if available given that it is optional. > > > > >>> > > > > I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. The new TLV is actually not > > needed for the Local Bias case because we already know how to make that > > case work without it. It is, however, needed for the non-Local Bias case > >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
