Hi Sandy, Please refer to my comments inline …
<http://www.zte.com.cn/> Original From: 张征 To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Date: 2024年12月05日 08:36 Subject: [bess] comments on draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Hi, I have some comments about the flow label, could you please help me understand it more clearly: 1. Can the flow label be used with other bottom label, such as the GAL used in RFC9489. When both of the labels are used, the flow label is no longer the bottom label, right? Ali> No, flow label doesn’t need to be added to OAM packets (i.e., w/ GAL) because OAM flows are very small. 2. In the last paragraph of section 7.11.2, "...... If there is a mismatch, the local PE MUST NOT add the remote PE as the EVPN destination for any of the corresponding service instances. The Flow label capability signaling is further described in Section 18.1." From this sentense, we know that if the PE supports flow label, but the remote PE doesn't, or the PE doesn't support flow label, but the remote PE does, then in both cases, the remote PE will be excluded as an EVPN destination. But in section 18.1: " * When F-bit is set to 1, the PE announces the capability of both sending and receiving flow label for known unicast. If the PE is capable itself of supporting Flow Label, then: - upon receiving the F-bit set (F=1) from a remote PE, it MUST send known unicast packets to that PE with Flow labels; - alternately, upon receiving the F-bit unset (F=0) from a remote PE, it MUST NOT send known unicast packets to that PE with Flow labels." From the description, it seems that when PE supports flow label, but the remote PE doesn't support flow label, the remote PE will not be excluded as an EVPN destination, do I understand it correctly? Ali> The above sentence needs to be modified to make it consistent with rest of the document – i.e., if there is a capability mismatch, then that PE should be excluded from that service instance per section 7.11.2 3. for the sentence in section 18.1: " When a PE that doesn't support flow label, receives the F-bit set (F=1) from a remote PE, it takes the following actions: a) it notifies the operator and b) it excludes the remote PE as the EVPN destination for any of the corresponding service instances. ......" Regarding the action b, does it mean that the remote PE's RT3 routes will be excluded from all the services, or only for that remote PE's RT2/RT1 routes? Ali> Only for that service instance and for that PE because such flag is carried in the EC sent along with IMET route. Will the remote PE's RT4 routes be excluded from these services? Ali> No, RT4 can apply to many service instances. So, some of these service instances can be fine. The exclusion of remote PEs is on a per-service instance basis. Cheers, Ali Thank you very much! Best regards, Sandy
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
