Neeraj, On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 02:24:33PM +0000, Neeraj Malhotra (nmalhotr) wrote: > Thanks for the note. Could you please check if the text added in section 7.7 > is sufficient? This adds a reference to evpn-ipvpn-interworking draft that > already has a section stating that attributes of type EVPN should NOT be > preserved from EVPN to non-EVPN networks. There is also text added to explain > why it is not beneficial to carry EVPN LBW into non-EVPN networks (in line > with the point you have below). > > Wanted to refrain from this draft defining interworking behavior and instead > leave that for the interworking draft to define. Would it be clearer instead > if this draft also explicitly states that the attribute should be dropped?
Avoiding redundant procedures is great. The detail as you mention is appropriately captured as you say: "This extended community is defined of type 0x06 (EVPN Extended Community Sub-Types)" and in ipvpn-inter... 5.2.4: : As discussed in point 1, Communities, Extended Communities, Large : Communities and Wide Communities SHOULD be preserved from the originating : ISF route by the gateway PE. Exceptions of Extended Communities that SHOULD : NOT be propagated are: : : BGP Encapsulation extended communities [RFC9012]. : : Route Target extended communities. Route Targets are always initialized when : readvertising an ISF route into a different domain, i.e., they are not : propagated. The initialized Route Target in the re-advertised ISF route may : or may not have the same value as the Route Target of the originating ISF : route. : : All the extended communities of type EVPN. ^^^^^^^^^^ So, my concern is addressed. Thanks for pointing out the error of my casual reading. -- Jeff > > Thanks, > Neeraj > > From: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, July 24, 2025 at 6:31 AM > To: [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: EVPN Link BW community cleanup > One thing I noted while browsing through the draft again after today's bess > presentation was a lack of text regarding "cleanup" of the EVPN LBW > community. (Although perhaps I'm browsing too shallowly.) > > The community is defined as transitive, and procedures exist wherein EVPN > routes that may carry this community may be carried back and forth in > an Internet context. This means there exists the possibility that such EVPN > LBW communities may pass between networks where their context is different. > That is, network 1 shouldn't use network 2's bandwidth. > > Community scrubbing is thus recommended. > > Please consider reviewing the following document's section 7.5 for some > general wisdom and consider what text should be added to your draft that > might be appropriate for this situation. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-routing-ops-sec-inform/ > > -- Jeff _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
