Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04
Thanks for the preliminary -05 revision. It answers a lot of my questions. However, now that I better understand the "overlay index" concept, I have gone a bit deeper into the details of your use cases, and have some comments on them in-line in the attached document. Probably the biggest issue is that I'm not sure it is quite clear precisely how you tell whether an overlay index is present in an RT-5, or precisely how you determine which kind of overlay index is present. Thanks for the preliminary -05 revision. It answers a lot of my questions. However, now that I better understand the "overlay index" concept, I have gone a bit deeper into the details of your use cases, and have some comments on them in-line in the attached document. Probably the biggest issue is that I'm not sure it is quite clear precisely how you tell whether an overlay index is present in an RT-5, or precisely how you determine which kind of overlay index is present. BESS Workgroup J. Rabadan, Ed. Internet Draft W. Henderickx Intended status: Standards Track Nokia J. Drake W. Lin Juniper A. Sajassi Cisco Expires: September 23, 2017 March 22, 2017 IP Prefix Advertisement in EVPN draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-05 Abstract EVPN provides a flexible control plane that allows intra-subnet connectivity in an IP/MPLS and/or an NVO-based network. In some networks, there is also a need for a dynamic and efficient inter- subnet connectivity across Tenant Systems and End Devices that can be physical or virtual and do not necessarily participate in dynamic routing protocols. This document defines a new EVPN route type for the advertisement of IP Prefixes and explains some use-case examples where this new route-type is used. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt Rabadan et al. Expires September 23, 2017 [Page 1] Internet-Draft EVPN Prefix Advertisement March 22, 2017 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction and problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Inter-subnet connectivity requirements in Data Centers . . . 4 2.2 The requirement for a new EVPN route type . . . . . . . . . 6 3. The BGP EVPN IP Prefix route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1 IP Prefix Route encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2 Overlay Indexes and Recursive Lookup Resolution . . . . . . 10 4. IP Prefix Overlay Index use-cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1 TS IP address Overlay Index use-case . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2 Floating IP Overlay Index use-case . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3 Bump-in-the-wire use-case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.4 IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.4.1 Interface-less IP-VRF-to-IP-VRF model . . . . . . . . . 19 4.4.2
Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04
Hi Eric, Thank you for your thorough review. I made quite a few changes based on your and Jeffrey’s input. Please see my responses in-line, one by one. Also please see the new version sent in my reply to Jeffrey. Thx, Jorge On 2/21/17, 3:41 PM, "BESS on behalf of Eric C Rosen"wrote: While I would like to see this document advance eventually, I don't think it is ready yet. Main points: - There is no clear explanation of the key concept of "overlay index". In particular, there is no real explanation of when to use an overlay index, or of when to use each kind of overlay index. There are some use case descriptions, and some examples of the sort "in this use case use this kind of overlay index", but no rules that specify the precise circumstances under which it is appropriate to use each kind of overlay index. [JORGE] I added a specific section about this. Hope it helps clarify. - There are no rules given that say how an NVE knows whether to originate an RT-5 route, or knows how to construct an RT-5 route. A number of use cases are walked through, which is helpful, but that is not a substitute for a real specification. [JORGE] in most of the cases, the use of one particular model is a matter of local policy. I made a few changes though based on your comments. - In the discussion of use case, there are statements like "support of this use case is REQUIRED". But it is very difficult to know exactly which features of the protocol are being mandated. [JORGE] I tried to clarify. Let us know if it helps. - Too much of the draft is the "RT-5's are good" sale pitch, which is repeated three times. (Sections 2.2, 4, and 6.) A single time would do. [JORGE] I removed section section 4 as suggested and made the conclusions section just a short summary. - The talk of IP-VRFs is a bit misleading, as this might be taken to suggest that the document provides a way to interoperate L3VPN with EVPN. [JORGE] Added this in the terminology section: “IP-VRF: A VPN Routing and Forwarding tables for IP addresses on an NVE/PE, similar to the VRF concept defined in [RFC4364], however, in this document, the IP routes are always populated by the EVPN address family.” I've attached the draft with some more comments in-line, look for lines beginning with . [JORGE] Please see my comments along yours. --- Abstract Perhaps: "may not support their own" --> "do not necessarily participate in dynamic" [JORGE] Done. ... 1. Terminology ... Overlay index: object used in the IP Prefix route, as described in this document. It can be an IP address in the tenant space or an ESI, and identifies a pointer yielded by the IP route lookup at the routing context importing the route. An overlay index always needs a recursive route resolution on the NVE receiving the IP Prefix route, so that the NVE knows to which egress NVE it needs to forward the packets. I can't really understand this description of "overlay index", and the concept is never really explained in this draft. All we have is a set of use cases, and we are told to set the overlay index in a certain way for a particular use case. It's never stated just how an NVE figures out what to specify as "overlay index" in any given RT-5 route. I think the "overlay index" is really intended to allow an NVE to specify either an ESI or an IP address (in the address space of the tenant system) as the next hop for a given IP prefix, where the resolution of the next hop may lead to an NVE which is not the NVE originating the route. A short explanation of why this is needed in EVPN (when it isn't, e.g., needed in L3VPN) would be useful. [JORGE] OK, I removed the term from section 1 and created section 3.2 to explain the concept better. Underlay next-hop: IP address sent by BGP along with any EVPN route, i.e. BGP next-hop. It identifies the NVE sending the route and it is used at the receiving NVE as the VXLAN destination VTEP or NVGRE destination end-point. In general, the BGP next hop does not identify the originator of the route, as the route may have passed through one or more ASBRs that are configured for "next hop self". Unless you want the VXLAN tunnels to terminate at the ASBR, it's a good idea to have a different means of identifying the tunnel endpoint. This also suggests that the document only applies to scenarios where VXLAN tunneling is used, which I don't think is the intention. [JORGE] OK, that’s fair. Moreover, I don’t think we need to explain what a BGP next-hop is. So I removed this “Underlay next-hop” point, it is confusing things. Ethernet NVO tunnel: it refers to
Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04
Authors, there has been a number of comments on this draft during WG LC. Please make sure you give an answer regarding each, and then update the draft if needed. Thank you M Le 13/02/2017 à 23:07, Martin Vigoureux a écrit : Hello Working Group, This email starts a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 [1] which is considered mature and ready for a final working group review. Note that this call is longer than usual because we are pushing two correlated documents together. Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than *5th of March*. Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it is also a call for support (or not) to publish this document as a Proposed Standard RFC. *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Note that, as of today, no IPR has been disclosed against this document or its earlier versions. We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. Please inform the mailing list, or the chairs, or only one of the chairs. Thank you, M [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04
Support and I'm not aware of any IPR Yours Irrespectively, John > -Original Message- > From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 5:08 PM > To: BESS <bess@ietf.org> > Subject: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 > > Hello Working Group, > > This email starts a Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 [1] which is considered mature > and > ready for a final working group review. > Note that this call is longer than usual because we are pushing two correlated > documents together. > > Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version yet, and > send your comments to the list, no later than *5th of March*. > Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it is also > a call > for support (or not) to publish this document as a Proposed Standard RFC. > > *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement, to ensure that IPR has been > disclosed > in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more > details). > > *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 please respond to this email and > indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. > > Note that, as of today, no IPR has been disclosed against this document or its > earlier versions. > > We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of what > this > document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. > Please inform the mailing list, or the chairs, or only one of the chairs. > > Thank you, > M > > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement/ > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw > > ___ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04
Support as co-auhtor. Not aware of any non-disclosed IPR. Regards, Ali On 2/13/17, 2:07 PM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"wrote: >Hello Working Group, > >This email starts a Working Group Last Call on >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 [1] which is considered >mature and ready for a final working group review. >Note that this call is longer than usual because we are pushing two >correlated documents together. > >Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent >version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than >*5th of March*. >Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it is >also a call for support (or not) to publish this document as a Proposed >Standard RFC. > >*Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that >applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement, to ensure that IPR >has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, >4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > >*If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 please respond to this >email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. > >Note that, as of today, no IPR has been disclosed against this document >or its earlier versions. > >We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of >what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. >Please inform the mailing list, or the chairs, or only one of the chairs. > >Thank you, >M > >[1] >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement >/ >[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw > >___ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04
Support. Regards, -Gaurav On 2/13/17, 2:07 PM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"wrote: >Hello Working Group, > >This email starts a Working Group Last Call on >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 [1] which is considered >mature and ready for a final working group review. >Note that this call is longer than usual because we are pushing two >correlated documents together. > >Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent >version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than >*5th of March*. >Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it is >also a call for support (or not) to publish this document as a Proposed >Standard RFC. > >*Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that >applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement, to ensure that IPR >has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, >4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > >*If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 please respond to this >email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. > >Note that, as of today, no IPR has been disclosed against this document >or its earlier versions. > >We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of >what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. >Please inform the mailing list, or the chairs, or only one of the chairs. > >Thank you, >M > >[1] >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement >/ >[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw > >___ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04
Support. Thanks, Acee On 2/13/17, 5:07 PM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"wrote: >Hello Working Group, > >This email starts a Working Group Last Call on >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 [1] which is considered >mature and ready for a final working group review. >Note that this call is longer than usual because we are pushing two >correlated documents together. > >Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent >version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than >*5th of March*. >Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it is >also a call for support (or not) to publish this document as a Proposed >Standard RFC. > >*Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that >applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement, to ensure that IPR >has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, >4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). > >*If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 please respond to this >email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. > >Note that, as of today, no IPR has been disclosed against this document >or its earlier versions. > >We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of >what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. >Please inform the mailing list, or the chairs, or only one of the chairs. > >Thank you, >M > >[1] >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement >/ >[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw > >___ >BESS mailing list >BESS@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04
As co-author, I support this document for publication as Standard RFC. Not aware of any IPR. Thanks. Jorge On 2/13/17, 11:07 PM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"wrote: Hello Working Group, This email starts a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 [1] which is considered mature and ready for a final working group review. Note that this call is longer than usual because we are pushing two correlated documents together. Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than *5th of March*. Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it is also a call for support (or not) to publish this document as a Proposed Standard RFC. *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Note that, as of today, no IPR has been disclosed against this document or its earlier versions. We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. Please inform the mailing list, or the chairs, or only one of the chairs. Thank you, M [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04
Support as co-author, not aware of IPR related to this draft On 14/02/2017, 00:07, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"wrote: Hello Working Group, This email starts a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 [1] which is considered mature and ready for a final working group review. Note that this call is longer than usual because we are pushing two correlated documents together. Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than *5th of March*. Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it is also a call for support (or not) to publish this document as a Proposed Standard RFC. *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Note that, as of today, no IPR has been disclosed against this document or its earlier versions. We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. Please inform the mailing list, or the chairs, or only one of the chairs. Thank you, M [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04
I support. Regards, Patrice Brissette On 2017-02-13, 5:07 PM, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux"wrote: Hello Working Group, This email starts a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 [1] which is considered mature and ready for a final working group review. Note that this call is longer than usual because we are pushing two correlated documents together. Please read this document if you haven't read the most recent version yet, and send your comments to the list, no later than *5th of March*. Note that this is *not only* a call for comments on the document; it is also a call for support (or not) to publish this document as a Proposed Standard RFC. *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04 please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. Note that, as of today, no IPR has been disclosed against this document or its earlier versions. We are also polling for knowledge of implementations of part or all of what this document specifies. This information is expected as per [2]. Please inform the mailing list, or the chairs, or only one of the chairs. Thank you, M [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess