Hi Ali,

As you said "In data-plane VNI always identifies a BD for both VLAN-aware 
bundle service, VLAN-based service, and VLAN bundle service."
I'm curious about that if we wan to distinguish the traffic of a bundle on 
the data plane, how could we achieve it?


Best Regards,
Wei


         Original
         
       
From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected]&gt;
Date: 2025年9月4日 13:01
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]&gt;, 
Selvakumar Sivaraj <[email protected]&gt;, Aijun Wang 
<[email protected]&gt;, 'BESS' <[email protected]&gt;
Subject: [bess] Re: VXLAN encapsulation question



 Hi Jeffrey,&nbsp;

 
 Please see my comments inline ...

 
From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]&gt;
 Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 at 12:20 PM
 To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected]&gt;, Selvakumar Sivaraj 
<[email protected]&gt;, Aijun Wang <[email protected]&gt;, 'BESS' 
<[email protected]&gt;
 Subject: RE: [bess] Re: VXLAN encapsulation question
 
 

Hi Ali,

&nbsp;

Thanks for your clarification.

&nbsp;Ali&gt; You’re  welcome&nbsp;

 

 Juniper Business Use Only

From:&nbsp;Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected]&gt;
 Sent:&nbsp;Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:54 PM
 To:&nbsp;Selvakumar Sivaraj <[email protected]&gt;; Aijun Wang 
<[email protected]&gt;; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang 
<[email protected]&gt;; 'BESS' <[email protected]&gt;
 Subject:&nbsp;Re: [bess] Re: VXLAN encapsulation question


 &nbsp;

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

 &nbsp;

Hi Jeffrey,

&nbsp;

RFC8365 was written to be consistent with RFC7348 because it is adding EVPN 
control plane to the VxLAN data plane defined by NVO3. So, if you look at 
RFC7348, it talks about inner VLAN tag handling and how it should NOT be sent 
unless  configured otherwise.

&nbsp;

Zzh&gt; I forgot about the RFC7348 base; however, only the EVPN talks about 
those different service models, so if I want to match the encapsulation to the 
service models&nbsp;I want to get the answers from RFC8365 (which currently 
only  provides partial answers).

 
 Ali&gt; It is implicitly there but if we want to make it explicit, then we can 
simply change the sentence in section 5.1
 from&nbsp;




This mode of operation in [RFC7348] maps to VLAN-Based Service in [RFC7432], 
where a tenant  &nbsp; VID gets mapped to an EVI.
 to:&nbsp;
 This mode of operation in [RFC7348]  can map to VLAN-Based Service or 
VLAN-Aware Bundle Service in [RFC7432],  where a tenant VID gets mapped to a BD.

 

&nbsp;

Section 5.1.3 of RFC8365 describes how to construct EVPN BGP routes for 
VLAN-aware bundle service (3rd para). Using this section along with section 5.1 
(VxLAN encapsulation), you will have your  answer about VLAN-aware bundle 
service - i.e., data-plane encapsulation is like VLAN-based service similar to 
that of RFC7432. In data-plane VNI always identifies a BD for both VLAN-aware 
bundle service, VLAN-based service, and VLAN bundle service.&nbsp;The 
difference  among them is in control plane route advertisement. So, to answer 
your questions specifically:

&nbsp;

Zzh&gt; My question is not about what to use to identify the BT/BD (let’s 
forget about that one). I just want to get a simple and clear answer from the 
RFC whether/when the VLAN is included in the encapsulated frame.

 For VLAN-aware bundle service, VLAN tag is not included (by default) unless 
configured otherwise (for passing .1P bits transparently or avoiding tag 
removal/addition). Even when you include the tag, the tag is NOT used for 
forwarding. It is the VNI that identifies  the BD!

 For VLAN bundle service, as stated in the section 5.1 of RFC8365, the tag is 
included in the encapsulated frame but again it is NOT used for forwarding 
decision. The tag just gets passed transparently to the host per RFC7432 
procedure.&nbsp;

Zzh&gt; Section 5.1 is specifically about encapsulation, and it specifically 
mention vlan-based and vlan-bundle, so it is natural/important to include 
vlan-aware bundle as well. BTW – does the option of including the vlan&nbsp;tag 
(e.g.&nbsp;for  passing .1P bits or avoiding tag removal/audition) apply to 
vlan-based as well?

 
 Ali&gt; &nbsp;We can change the sentence in section 5.1 as I suggested above. 
And the option of carrying tag for .1p bits or avoiding tag/removal/addition 
also applies to VLAN-based service (but as previously mentioned &nbsp;and as it 
is stated in both RFC 7348 and RFC8365,  the default mode is to strip it).

 

Zzh&gt; For the VLAN-Bundle service, the reason I have the question is that the 
text mentions “an *option* of including an inner VLAN tag in the&nbsp; 
encapsulated&nbsp;frame” – I wanted to confirm that for the VLAN-Bundle that is 
mandatory.

 
 Ali&gt; The draft says “VxLAN provides an option of including inner VLAN tag 
…”, which means RFC7348 provides an &nbsp;option …. The option that is provided 
by RFC7348 MUST be used if we want to provide VLAN-bundle service. &nbsp;If you 
want to create an errata so that  we can incorporate these clarifications, I am 
fine with it.&nbsp;

 
 Thanks for reviewing these documents and paying careful attention.

 
 Cheers,
 Ali

&nbsp;

Frankly, I don’t see any issues with the existing specifications in the 
RFC8365. Can we wordsmith it a bit better? Sure, but it will be just 
wordsmithing.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Zzh&gt; I hope the above explains why I had these questions (again, please 
forget about issue how to identify the BT/BD).

Zzh&gt; Thanks.

Zzh&gt; Jeffrey

&nbsp;

Cheers,

Ali

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

From: Selvakumar Sivaraj <[email protected]&gt;
 Date: Monday, September 1, 2025 at 4:43 AM
 To: Aijun Wang <[email protected]&gt;,  'Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang' 
<[email protected]&gt;,  'BESS' <[email protected]&gt;
 Subject: [bess] Re: VXLAN encapsulation question


&gt;1. What about vlan-aware bundle? Is the vlan tag included in the 
encapsulated frame? There is no text for that.
 &gt;2. For vlan bundle service, is the vlan tag optional or mandated in the 
encapsulated frame?

&nbsp;

In the context of VLAN-aware and VLAN-based services, the VLAN tag is optional. 
&nbsp;A scenario where the VLAN tag is carried is when the .1P bits need to be 
preserved end to end.

&nbsp;

&gt;We are also wondering how to implement the "VLAN-aware bundle service" in 
the data plane.

&nbsp;

Data plane sees no difference between the three service types w.r.to 
identifying the bridge domain. In&nbsp;all services, the  bridge table is 
identified using the VNI.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&gt;for LSI bundle service.

For the scenarios captured in the document, did you explore double VxLAN 
encapsulation instead of protocol changes and custom modifications to VxLAN 
header? VxLAN packets that are received CE traverses the MAN network and 
reaches  PE which then encapsulates the received frame in VxLAN encapsulation 
and sends it to other PE’'s. &nbsp;Receiving PE decapsulates the outer VxLAN 
header and forwards it to the CE.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Thanks,

Selvakumar

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Juniper Business Use Only

From: Aijun Wang <[email protected]&gt;
 Date: Monday, September 1, 2025 at 12:27
 To: 'Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang' <[email protected]&gt;,  
'BESS' <[email protected]&gt;
 Subject: [bess] Re: VXLAN encapsulation question


[External Email. Be cautious of content]
 
 
 Hi, Jeffrey:
 
 There are several occurrences for "VLAN-aware bundle service" in RFC 8365, but 
they focus mainly on the control plane advertisements, not the encapsulation 
data plane.
 We are also wondering how to implement the "VLAN-aware bundle service" in the 
data plane.
 
 If there is none, should we consider to standardize it?
 This is also the reason of extension that is described in 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HLiopGnAVNJstDNrf3QL0LvigYTp0pOKbQQ29koU6KZ9azStYREbdVDklnsJEMmG521a3MoBQMaewqipn62Q63Tb$&nbsp;
  for LSI bundle service.
 
 Aijun Wang
 China Telecom
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: [email protected]&nbsp;[mailto:[email protected]]  
On Behalf Of Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
 Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 4:58 AM
 To: 'BESS' <[email protected]&gt;
 Subject: [bess] VXLAN encapsulation question
 
 Hi,
 
 RFC8365 says:
 
 &nbsp;&nbsp; VXLAN encapsulation is based on UDP, with an 8-byte header 
following
 &nbsp;&nbsp; the UDP header.&nbsp; VXLAN provides a 24-bit VNI, which typically
 &nbsp;&nbsp; provides a one-to-one mapping to the tenant VID, as described in
 &nbsp;&nbsp; [RFC7348].&nbsp; In this scenario, the ingress VTEP does not 
include an
 &nbsp;&nbsp; inner VLAN tag on the encapsulated frame, and the egress VTEP
 &nbsp;&nbsp; discards the frames with an inner VLAN tag.&nbsp; This mode of 
operation
 &nbsp;&nbsp; in [RFC7348] maps to VLAN-Based Service in [RFC7432], where a 
tenant
 &nbsp;&nbsp; VID gets mapped to an EVI.
 
 &nbsp;&nbsp; VXLAN also provides an option of including an inner VLAN tag in 
the
 &nbsp;&nbsp; encapsulated frame, if explicitly configured at the VTEP.&nbsp; 
This mode
 &nbsp;&nbsp; of operation can map to VLAN Bundle Service in [RFC7432] because 
all
 &nbsp;&nbsp; the tenant's tagged frames map to a single bridge table 
/&nbsp;MAC-VRF,
 &nbsp;&nbsp; and the inner VLAN tag is not used for lookup by the disposition 
PE
 &nbsp;&nbsp; when performing VXLAN decapsulation as described in Section 6 of
 &nbsp;&nbsp; [RFC7348].
 
 I have two questions:
 
 1. What about vlan-aware bundle? Is the vlan tag included in the encapsulated 
frame? There is no text for that.
 2. For vlan bundle service, is the vlan tag optional or mandated in the 
encapsulated frame?
 
 I also wonder if "and the inner VLAN tag is not used for lookup by the 
disposition PE
 &nbsp;&nbsp; when performing VXLAN decapsulation as described in Section 6 of
 &nbsp;&nbsp; [RFC7348]" should be part of the reason (the text follows 
"because ..."), or the following text is better?
 
 &nbsp;&nbsp; ... This mode
 &nbsp;&nbsp; of operation can map to VLAN Bundle Service in [RFC7432] because 
all
 &nbsp;&nbsp; the tenant's tagged frames map to a single bridge table / MAC-VRF,
 &nbsp;&nbsp; *though* the inner VLAN tag is not used for lookup by the 
disposition PE
 &nbsp;&nbsp; when performing VXLAN decapsulation as described in Section 6 of
 &nbsp;&nbsp; [RFC7348].
 
 i.e., s/and/though/
 In fact, I wonder if "because" should also be changed to "where".
 
 Thanks.
 Jeffrey
 
 Juniper Business Use Only
 
 _______________________________________________
 BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
 To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
 
 _______________________________________________
 BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
 To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to