Re: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface - reg

[Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)]

Hi,

I think the definition of Ethernet Tag in the framework draft should be clear 
enough.
There are implementations using configured IDs.
Jorge


From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal 
Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 2:54 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
Cc: Jaikumar Somasundaram , "bess@ietf.org" 
, P Muthu Arul Mozhi 
Subject: Re: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface - reg

Hi Jorge,

For EVPN VPWS, I understand that service instance identifies are used as 
Ethernet Tags in the DF election. However, for EVPN VPLS is it common to 
configure anything other than the VLAN ID (VID) as the Ethernet Tag? Do we have 
vendor implementations providing such an Ethernet Tag configuration different 
from the VID for EVPN VPLS?

Regards,
Muthu

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:49 PM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) 
mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>> wrote:
The Ethernet Tag that you use for DF Election does not even need to match what 
you have in the data path.
Note that the definition says even “configured IDs”.

As long as you use the same ID for the BD on all the PEs attached to the ES, 
you are fine.

Thx
Jorge

From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal 
mailto:muthu.a...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5:10 PM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)" 
mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>
Cc: Jaikumar Somasundaram 
mailto:jaikumar.somasunda...@ericsson.com>>,
 "bess@ietf.org" mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, P 
Muthu Arul Mozhi 
mailto:p.muthu.arul.mo...@ericsson.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface - reg

Thanks, Jorge. It is clear that the Ethernet Tag needs to be different from 0 
for the purpose of DF election..

One of the options a provider has for supporting untagged frames in EVPN VPLS 
multihoming in VID translation...a rule to match untagged frames and impose a 
VID at the ingress and another rule to match that VID and dispose it at the 
egress.

Are there any other options that can interop well?

Regards,
Muthu

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:11 AM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) 
mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>> wrote:
Hi,

I think you should check out 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-09

This draft updates RFC7432 in certain aspects of the DF Election, and it is 
already at the RFC editor.

Check out the use of Ethernet Tag in the document.

   o Ethernet Tag - used to represent a Broadcast Domain that is
 configured on a given ES for the purpose of DF election. Note that
 any of the following may be used to represent a Broadcast Domain:
 VIDs (including Q-in-Q tags), configured IDs, VNI (VXLAN Network
 Identifiers), normalized VID, I-SIDs (Service Instance
 Identifiers), etc., as long as the representation of the broadcast
 domains is configured consistently across the multi-homed PEs
 attached to that ES. The Ethernet Tag value MUST be different from
 zero.

Thanks.
Jorge

From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Jaikumar Somasundaram 
mailto:jaikumar.somasunda...@ericsson.com>>
Date: Friday, April 5, 2019 at 6:15 AM
To: "bess@ietf.org" mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc: P Muthu Arul Mozhi 
mailto:p.muthu.arul.mo...@ericsson.com>>
Subject: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface - reg

Hi All,

RFC7432, section 8.5, talks about DF election algorithm (service carving 
algorithm)

only for  for VLAN-based service or  for VLAN-(aware)
bundle service.

But there wont be any vlan id for untagged interface and so I wonder
how the service carving algorithm can be applied to elect the DF.
Also, should I use the lower VLAN ID even in the case of VLAN-bundle
service, for electing the DF?

Could some one help me to understand this please?

=
8.5.  Designated Forwarder 
Election

…

   The default procedure for DF election at the granularity of  for VLAN-based service or  for VLAN-(aware)

   bundle service is referred to as "service carving".
…

  Assuming a redundancy group of N PE nodes, for VLAN-based service,

  the PE with ordinal i is the DF for an  when (V mod N)

  = i.  In the case of VLAN-(aware) bundle service, then the

  numerically lowest VLAN value in that bundle on that ES MUST be

  used in the modulo function.
…
===

Thanks & Regards
Jaikumar S

___
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

[bess] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-07: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags/



--
COMMENT:
--

A few nits:

(1) In Section 3.1.  Typo.  s/seqence/sequence/

(2) Section 4.  Typo. s/VPLS,there/VPLS, there/

(3) Section 5.1.  Editorial.  s/the below specified network topology/the
network topology specified in Section 6/


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Re: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface - reg

[Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal]

Hi Jorge,

For EVPN VPWS, I understand that service instance identifies are used as
Ethernet Tags in the DF election. However, for EVPN VPLS is it common to
configure anything other than the VLAN ID (VID) as the Ethernet Tag? Do we
have vendor implementations providing such an Ethernet Tag configuration
different from the VID for EVPN VPLS?

Regards,
Muthu

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:49 PM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <
jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote:

> The Ethernet Tag that you use for DF Election does not even need to match
> what you have in the data path.
>
> Note that the definition says even “configured IDs”.
>
>
>
> As long as you use the same ID for the BD on all the PEs attached to the
> ES, you are fine.
>
>
>
> Thx
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *From: *Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal 
> *Date: *Friday, April 5, 2019 at 5:10 PM
> *To: *"Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"  >
> *Cc: *Jaikumar Somasundaram , "
> bess@ietf.org" , P Muthu Arul Mozhi <
> p.muthu.arul.mo...@ericsson.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface
> - reg
>
>
>
> Thanks, Jorge. It is clear that the Ethernet Tag needs to be different
> from 0 for the purpose of DF election..
>
>
>
> One of the options a provider has for supporting untagged frames in EVPN
> VPLS multihoming in VID translation...a rule to match untagged frames and
> impose a VID at the ingress and another rule to match that VID and dispose
> it at the egress.
>
>
>
> Are there any other options that can interop well?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Muthu
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:11 AM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <
> jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I think you should check out
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-09
>
>
>
> This draft updates RFC7432 in certain aspects of the DF Election, and it
> is already at the RFC editor.
>
>
>
> Check out the use of Ethernet Tag in the document.
>
>
>
>o Ethernet Tag - used to represent a Broadcast Domain that is
>
>  configured on a given ES for the purpose of DF election. Note that
>
>  any of the following may be used to represent a Broadcast Domain:
>
>  VIDs (including Q-in-Q tags), configured IDs, VNI (VXLAN Network
>
>  Identifiers), normalized VID, I-SIDs (Service Instance
>
>  Identifiers), etc., as long as the representation of the broadcast
>
>  domains is configured consistently across the multi-homed PEs
>
>  attached to that ES. The Ethernet Tag value MUST be different from
>
>  zero.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> *From: *BESS  on behalf of Jaikumar Somasundaram <
> jaikumar.somasunda...@ericsson.com>
> *Date: *Friday, April 5, 2019 at 6:15 AM
> *To: *"bess@ietf.org" 
> *Cc: *P Muthu Arul Mozhi 
> *Subject: *[bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface -
> reg
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> RFC7432, section 8.5, talks about DF election algorithm (service carving
> algorithm)
>
> only for  for VLAN-based service or  for 
> VLAN-(aware)
>
> bundle service.
>
>
>
> But there wont be any vlan id for untagged interface and so I wonder
>
> how the service carving algorithm can be applied to elect the DF.
>
> Also, should I use the lower VLAN ID even in the case of VLAN-bundle
>
> service, for electing the DF?
>
>
>
> Could some one help me to understand this please?
>
>
>
> =
> 8.5 .  Designated
> Forwarder Election
>
> …
>
>The default procedure for DF election at the granularity of 
>VLAN> for VLAN-based service or  for VLAN-(aware)
>
>bundle service is referred to as "service carving".
>
> …
>
>   Assuming a redundancy group of N PE nodes, for VLAN-based service,
>
>   the PE with ordinal i is the DF for an  when (V mod N)
>
>   = i.  In the case of VLAN-(aware) bundle service, then the
>
>   numerically lowest VLAN value in that bundle on that ES MUST be
>
>   used in the modulo function.
>
> …
>
> ===
>
>
>
> Thanks & Regards
>
> Jaikumar S
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[bess] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-07: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags/



--
COMMENT:
--

— Section 3.1 —

   but the PW MUST
   NOT be prevented from coming up due to this mismatch. So, the PW MUST
   still come up but not use control word in either direction.

The second MUST seems wrong to me: the normative behaviour is already stated by
the MUST NOT, but there could be other factors that legitimately prevent the PW
from coming up, no?  Likely, this should say, “So, the PW will still come up,
...”

— Section 3.2 —

   If the PEs at both ends of the PW do not agree on the
   setting of the S-bit, the PW SHOULD NOT come up.

Why SHOULD NOT?  Why might it be allowed to come up anyway, and what would the
consequences of that be (which would need to be understood in order to not obey
the SHOULD NOT)?


___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess