Re: [bess] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-04

[Eric C Rosen]

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

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

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

[Martin Vigoureux]

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

[John E Drake]

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

[Ali Sajassi (sajassi)]

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

[Gaurav Dawra (gdawra)]

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

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

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

[Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)]

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

[Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)]

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

[Patrice Brissette (pbrisset)]

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