Hi Neeraj,
ECMP is mentioned many times in the draft. It seems to be used somewhat
inconsistently.
My understanding is that ECMP, spelled as Equal Cost Multi-Path, is about the
underlay paths to egress MHES PEs. If an ingress PE does not have equal cost
paths to those PEs, then load-balancing will not be used at all by default -
the closest PE is always used. This is to optimize the traffic delivery in the
core network.
Of course, one may choose to do load-balancing even w/o ECMP, for better
utilization of MHES ACs.
The above is regardless of whether equal or non-equal distribution of load to
different PEs is used or not.
I suppose the document is mainly about equal or unequal (weighted)
load-balancing, which can be applied regardless of whether ECMP exists or not
(depending on the operator's choice).
If my understanding is correct, the document should minimize the use of ECMP
term. Perhaps just mention it once or twice - either that ECMP is the
prerequisite, or load-balancing (equal or unequal) can be used whether ECMP
exists or not.
Some examples of inconsistent uses:
Once consistency of 'Value-Units' is validated, ingress PE SHOULD use
the 'Value-Weight' received from each egress PE to compute a relative
(normalized) weight for each egress PE, per ES, and then use this
relative weight to compute a weighted path-list to be used for load
balancing, as opposed to using an ECMP path-list for load balancing
across the egress PE paths. Egress PE Weight and resulting weighted
path-list computation at ingress PEs is a local matter.
The above paragraph says, "a weighted path-list ... as opposed to an ECMP
path-list". It implies that ECMP refers to "equal" load balancing.
While incorporating link bandwidth into the DF election process
provides optimal BUM traffic distribution across the ES links, it
also implies that DF elections are re-adjusted on link failures or
bandwidth changes. If the operator does not wish to have this level
of churn in their DF election, then they should not advertise the BW
capability. Not advertising BW capability may result in less than
optimal BUM traffic distribution while still retaining the ability to
allow an ingress PE to do weighted ECMP for its unicast traffic to a
set of egress PEs.
The "weighted ECMP" above implies ECMP is about the ECMP in the underlay.
In an EVPN IRB (Integrated Routing and Bridging) overlay network as
described in [RFC9135], with a CE multi-homed via a EVPN all-active
multi-homing, bridged and routed traffic from ingress PEs can be
equally load balanced (ECMPed) across the multi-homing egress PEs:
* ECMP Load-balancing for bridged unicast traffic is enabled via
aliasing and mass-withdraw procedures detailed in [RFC7432].
* ECMP Load-balancing for routed unicast traffic is enabled via
existing L3 ECMP mechanisms.
The above seems to refer to equal load-balancing.
Jeffrey
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
