Hi Jorge,
I think the description in draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b is OK.
But I don't know why the RD of AD per ES route is limited to type 1 RD. That's
why I talk about this together with rfc7432bis.
If the scenario from draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b has shown out
that it will be useful for the RD-type of AD per ES route being consistence
with MAC-VRF RD, I think maybe it is not necessary for rfc7432bis to keep these
restraints unchanged. I notice that you are also a co-author of rfc7432bis, how
do you think from the viewpoint of rfc7432bis?
Thanks,
Yubao
原始邮件
发件人：JorgeRabadan(Nokia)
收件人：王玉保10045807;[email protected];[email protected];
抄送人：[email protected];
日 期 ：2023年05月13日 00:23
主 题 ：Re: Discussion on rfc7432bis and
draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b
Hi Yubao,
Thanks for reviewing the document.
I don’t see any conflicting information:
On one hand the use of type 1 RD for MAC-VRF is RECOMMENDED in rfc7432bis,
which means that normally people will have a type 1 RD in MAC-VRFs. If you
don’t follow that strong recommendation for the MAC-VRF RD, you can’t use the
documented solutions in 3.1.2 or 3.1.3
On the other hand draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b is documenting
some existing solutions, but not specifying or imposing any in particular.
So I don’t think there is conflicting information. But if you still think we
should clarify that in draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b we’ll be
happy to do it.
Thanks.
Jorge
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:54 AM
To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)
<[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Discussion on rfc7432bis and
draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.
Hi Authors,
It seems that draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b has conflicting
discription with rfc7432 about the RD-type of AD per ES routes:
Section 3.1.3 of draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b-00: "If that is
the case, now the A-D per ES routes can use the route distinguisher assigned to
the EVPN Instance (or VRF), which is the same one used by the routes type 2 or
5 for the EVI."
Section 8.2.1 of rfc7432bis: "The Route Distinguisher MUST be a Type 1 RD
[RFC4364]. The value field comprises an IP address of the PE (typically, the
loopback address) followed by a number unique to the PE."
The RD of EVI is not always a Type 1 RD but rfc7432 says that the RD of AD per
ES route MUST be a Type1 RD. If it is not necessary to prevent other RD-types
from being used in AD per ES routes, is it better for rfc7432bis to change the
"MUST" to "MAY" ? I think such change is also compatible.
Thanks,
Yubao
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
