From: Menachem Dodge <mdo...@drivenets.com> Date: Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 11:58 PM To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Draft draft-ietf-bess-7432bis-07 section 7.11.2 Hello Ali,
Thanks very much for your helpful response. Referring to #2 below, I assume that the default behavior of RFC 7432 for the Flow Label would be “no flow label”. Is that correct? That’s correct. Cheers, Ali Thank you kindly. Best Regards, Menachem From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com> Date: Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 3:41 To: Menachem Dodge <mdo...@drivenets.com>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Draft draft-ietf-bess-7432bis-07 section 7.11.2 CAUTION: External E-Mail - Use caution with links and attachments Please refer to my comments below in red … From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Menachem Dodge <mdo...@drivenets.com> Date: Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 8:51 AM To: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org> Subject: [bess] Draft draft-ietf-bess-7432bis-07 section 7.11.2 Hello All, Section 7.11.2 of the draft-ietf-bess-7432bis states that if there is a mismatch – either of the L2-MTU, the Flow Label, or the Control Word that “the local PE MUST NOT add the remote PE as the EVPN destination for any of the corresponding service instances.” 1. Is the reasoning that all PEs of a particular instance must behave in the same manner with regard to including the Flow Label / Control word and the L2 MTU size? The granularity is either at the EVI level or EVI/ESI level and for ELAN, we have any to any connectivity which means the info needs to be consistent for that EVI or EVI/ESI. So, if there is a mismatch between local and remote info, then that connection is not established and operator should be notified. This way we will avoid any unpredictable behavior. 1. What should be the behavior if local configuration is enabling the Flow Label and/or Control word but the L2-ATTR extended community is not received from a remote PE? Is the absence of L2-ATTR taken as meaning disabled and the remote PE must not be added ? Or perhaps it should be interpreted as unknown and the PE should assume that the local configuration applies also with regard to the remote PE? This needs to be analyzed wrt individual flags and the absence of L2 Attribute EC should mean the behavior is that of RFC7432 so that we have backward compatibility – i.e., if the local PE is configured with no control word and it receives the route without L2 attribute EC, then it should NOT establish connection for that EVI because the absence of EC means the remote PE should send packets with control word per RFC7432. 1. Is the same behavior intended regarding EVPN-VPWS service instances as RFC 8214 only mentions L2-MTU mismatch but not control word mismatches. Yes, mismatch of control word should also apply to EVPN-VPWS. Cheers, Ali Thank you kindly. Best Regards, Menachem Dodge System Architect [signature_3683755730] +972-526175734<tel:+972-526175734> mdo...@drivenets.com<mailto:mdo...@drivenets.com> follow us on Linkedin<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_drivenets&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=cezglEhs6Oa_CKN9mhFbT8T8kmWwaNdtBDjE9bvBG_E&m=7vc9kZQGwO-AuvuIpq-9R6fQ_1nzXOBC14weVS_T0X0&s=ZOwlTeTzRwLFnZdUX1cu5e-N21FJb3VkN5kN0vdUb6o&e=> www.drivenets.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.drivenets.com&d=DwQGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=cezglEhs6Oa_CKN9mhFbT8T8kmWwaNdtBDjE9bvBG_E&m=7vc9kZQGwO-AuvuIpq-9R6fQ_1nzXOBC14weVS_T0X0&s=6dVpM7D8w3FEU564eePsbsF1IlVd3a5xNnLtukA91UQ&e=> [DriveNets Network Cloud]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drivenets.com_products_&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=cezglEhs6Oa_CKN9mhFbT8T8kmWwaNdtBDjE9bvBG_E&m=7vc9kZQGwO-AuvuIpq-9R6fQ_1nzXOBC14weVS_T0X0&s=Wat92F_qqgdgBF-q1akiFxmtKBruieVNJheGxIJwcPI&e=>
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
