Hi, Sasha:

 

The requirement is not PW communication, it is VxLAN based PW access to the 
EVPN backbone service.

As wei has presented in the BESS meeting, “classic” PW can’t meet the 
customer’s communication requirements.

 

We need Multipoint to multipoint communications, these “sites” are accessed via 
the “VxLAN based PW”, not the point to point communication. 

 

Aijun

 

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of 
Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 10:58 AM
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected]>; Aijun Wang 
<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [bess] Re: My question/comment about 
draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn-10 at the BESS WG session today

 

Ali, Aijun and all,

I concur with Ali’s response.

 

I can also add that “classic” PWs can cross IP-only domains using MPLS in GRE 
transport tunnels (RFC 4023 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4023> ). 
And nothing in 

>From my POV, this would address your problem just as well – without the need 
>for any new entities. 

I do not see any conceptual issue with using such PWs as Virtual Ethernet 
Segments as defined in RFC 9784.

 

My 2c,

Sasha

 

From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > 
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 2:10 AM
To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]>; Alexander Vainshtein 
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; 
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; 
[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [bess] Re: My question/comment about 
draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn-10 at the BESS WG session today

 

Sasha, 

Thanks for your question as I couldn’t figure out what this draft was trying to 
do on my quick glance ☺

 

Aijun,

EVPN-VPWS (RFC8214) applies to both MPLS and VxLAN as described in the 
document. Furthermore, although RFC9784 is written with MPLS access network as 
an example, it can easily be applied to VxLAN access since a VPWS instance can 
be either per RFC8214. 

So, in light of these two RFCs, are there anything that you want to do that is 
not covered by these two RFCs?

 

Cheers,

Ali

 

 

 

From: Aijun Wang <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Date: Thursday, July 24, 2025 at 10:54 AM
To: 'Alexander Vainshtein' <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> >, [email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>  <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, 
[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>  
<[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: [bess] Re: My question/comment about 
draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn-10 at the BESS WG session today

Hi, Sasha:

 

Using the concept of virtual segment in RFC 9784 to access the core EVPN 
service is similar with our proposal.

The difference is that in RFC 9784, the access network is one MPLS based 
network, the PW can be identified by the corresponding MPLS label.

But, in our proposal, the access network is one Layer 3 Native IP network, 
there is no MPLS deployed in the access network.

 

Then, some new solution (especially how to identify the logical session, how to 
transfer them via the control plane and how to encapsulate them in the VxLAN 
packet should be defined.

 

Does the above explanation address your concerns?

If so, we can add some procedure description for our proposal according to 
another expert’s comments.

 

Thanks!

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>  
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf 
Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 5:48 PM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; 
[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> 
Subject: [bess] My question/comment about draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn-10 
at the BESS WG session today

 

Hi all,

Just to repeat my question/comment asked at the BESS WG session in Madrid today:

 

I have asked whether the authors considered using the PWs crossing the L3 
domains as Virtual Ethernet Segments as described in Section 1.3 of RFC 9784 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9784#section-1.3> ?

 

At the first glance, this could address all the problems with which this draft 
tries to cope.

 

Regards,

Sasha

 

 

Disclaimer

This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon 
Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary 
for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or 
distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly 
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments. 

_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to