Hi Thomas, I and other co-authors will be looking forward to receiving your write-up and answer the question regarding existing implementation. From my side, I have the info and I am sure it is the same for other co-authors. Thanks for giving the heads-up since some co-authors need to check with their PLMs before making public statement regarding their implementation.
Regards, Ali On 6/8/16, 3:12 AM, "BESS on behalf of Thomas Morin" <bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of thomas.mo...@orange.com> wrote: >Hi Ali, > >I haven't started yet the shepherd write-up, but it's on my todo list. > >I will do a shepherd review along with the write-up, which may lead to >resolving points with authors, but I can't tell before I get to do it. > >One thing that can be useful to collect right now is any information you >may have on existing implementations (although this draft was WGLC'd >before we setup BESS one-implementation policy, this question has been >part of shepherd write-up question, even if its not considered a gating >criteria). > >Thanks in advance, > >-Thomas > > >2016-06-06, Ali Sajassi (sajassi): >> >> Is there anything else you need from me or other co-authors to progress >> this daft? The WG LC was completed before last IETF. >> >> Regards, >> Ali >> >> On 5/24/16, 12:18 AM, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <saja...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Thomas, >>> >>> Can you please progress this draft. The WG LC was completed on 3/29 and >>> all comments except a single optional comment were addressed before the >>> last IETF. The single optional comment was addressed couple of weeks >>>ago >>> and the draft was re-published then. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Ali >>> >>> >>> On 5/11/16, 10:30 PM, "BESS on behalf of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" >>> <bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of saja...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Thomas, >>>> >>>> I just made the final edits to evpn-etree draft and published it as >>>> rev05. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Ali >>>> >>>> On 3/29/16, 2:49 AM, "thomas.mo...@orange.com" >>>><thomas.mo...@orange.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> This WG Last Call is now closed and the document will move to the >>>>>next >>>>> steps toward publication. >>>>> >>>>> The modification mentioned below will be incorporated in next >>>>>release. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> -Thomas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2016-03-15, Ali Sajassi (sajassi): >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeffrey, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/1/16, 2:41 PM, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzh...@juniper.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ali, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One more question about PBB-EVPN. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the regular EVPN, section 3.3.2 talks about a situation where >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> only traffic is BUM. There is no need for mac learning in that >>>>>>> situation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For PBB-EVPN, I assume this is also possible. With this, there is >>>>>>>no >>>>>>> need >>>>>>> to advertise per-ES B-mac addresses - a single pair of global >>>>>>> root/leaf >>>>>>> B-mac addresses are enough. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps this can be mentioned for parity/completeness. Of course, >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> not a big deal and either way it's fine - but I do want to ask to >>>>>>> confirm >>>>>>> my understanding. >>>>>> >>>>>> We’ll do. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Ali >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeffrey >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:saja...@cisco.com] >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:04 AM >>>>>>>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>; EXT - >>>>>>>> thomas.mo...@orange.com <thomas.mo...@orange.com>; BESS >>>>>>>> <bess@ietf.org>; >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-et...@tools.ietf.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Jeffrey, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the review. Your comments helps tighten the draft some >>>>>>>> more. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> have updated the draft and will publish it next (rev04). Majority >>>>>>>>of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> comments were editorial in nature for better clarifications. Since >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> existing draft (rev03) reflects the consensus regarding our >>>>>>>>several >>>>>>>> rounds >>>>>>>> of discussions where we have taken care of the technical items, it >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> consistent with our expectation of not seeing any major issue >>>>>>>>during >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> LC. Please refer to my replies in line. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Ali >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/27/16, 5:26 PM, "BESS on behalf of Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" >>>>>>>> <bess-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of zzh...@juniper.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was involved in relevant discussions, and have reviewed once >>>>>>>>>more >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> this LC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I support the publication, but with the following >>>>>>>>> questions/comments. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2.1 Scenario 1: Leaf OR Root site(s) per PE >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... If the number of EVIs is very large >>>>>>>>> (e.g., more than 32K or 64K), then RT type 0 as defined in >>>>>>>>> [RFC4360] >>>>>>>>> SHOULD be used; otherwise, RT type 2 is sufficient. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> RFC 7153 should be referenced for "Type 2". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Done. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Additionally, why is 32K mentioned? I can understand the 64k >>>>>>>>>part. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Removed 32K since the example is clear enough with 64K >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... the MPLS-encapsulated frames MUST be tagged with an >>>>>>>>> indication of whether they originated from a Leaf AC or not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps change the last line to "indication if they originated >>>>>>>>>from >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> Leaf AC"? Packets from a root AC are not tagged with a leaf >>>>>>>>> indication. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK. Better yet. It should say ³indication when they originated >>>>>>>>from >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> leaf >>>>>>>> AC². >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Other mechanisms for identifying whether an egress AC is a >>>>>>>>>root >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> leaf is beyond the scope of this document. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Should "egress" be "ingress" in the above paragraph? Or simply >>>>>>>>> removed? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nice catch! It is ³ingress². It is now corrected. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... This Leaf MPLS label is advertised to other PE devices, >>>>>>>>> using a new EVPN Extended Community called E-TREE Extended >>>>>>>>> Community >>>>>>>>> (section 5.1) along with an Ethernet A-D per ES route with ESI >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>> zero and a set of Route Targets (RTs) corresponding to all the >>>>>>>>> leaf >>>>>>>>> ACs on the PE. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps change the last sentence to "... corresponding to all >>>>>>>>>EVIs >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> have leaf sites on the PE." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The second to last sentence of section 3.2.1 says the same thing. >>>>>>>>I >>>>>>>> changed this sentence and removed the 2nd to last sentence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3.2.3 BUM traffic originated from a multi-homed site on a leaf AC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In this scenario, it is assumed that a multi-homed Ethernet >>>>>>>>> Segment >>>>>>>>> (ES) can have a mixed of both leaf and root ACs with each AC >>>>>>>>> designating a subnet (e.g., a VLAN). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I understand that different VLANs on the same ES could be roots >>>>>>>>>or >>>>>>>>> leaves. I suppose it's more important to say that for the same >>>>>>>>> vlan, >>>>>>>>> different PEs on the same ES must have the same root/leaf >>>>>>>>> designation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That¹s given. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Perhaps the first sentence could be reworded as the following to >>>>>>>> capture >>>>>>>>> the above point: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While different ACs (VLANs) on the same ES could have >>>>>>>>>different >>>>>>>>> root/leaf designation (some being roots and some being >>>>>>>>>leaves), >>>>>>>>> the same VLAN does have the same root/leaf designation on all >>>>>>>>> PEs on the same ES. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That¹s fine. It makes it more clear. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the following: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... the PEs with Leaf sites perform MAC learning in the >>>>>>>>> data-path over their Ethernet Segments, and advertise >>>>>>>>> reachability >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> EVPN MAC Advertisement routes which are imported only by PEs >>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>> least one Root site in the EVI. A PE with only Leaf sites will >>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>> import these routes. PEs with Root and/or Leaf sites may use >>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>> Ethernet A-D routes for aliasing (in the case of multi-homed >>>>>>>>> segments) and for mass MAC withdrawal per [RFC 7432]. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The above seems to contradict with the recommendation in Section >>>>>>>>> 2.2. >>>>>>>> If >>>>>>>>> the context is the scenario described in section 2.1 then that's >>>>>>>>> fine, >>>>>>>>> but the text does not have a clear context. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Agreed. Updated the section to indicate the context is section >>>>>>>>2.1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3.3.2 E-Tree without MAC Learning >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The PEs implementing an E-Tree service need not perform MAC >>>>>>>>> learning >>>>>>>>> when the traffic flows between Root and Leaf sites are >>>>>>>>>multicast >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> broadcast. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I suppose an "only" word should be added at the end of the above >>>>>>>> sentence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Agreed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The fields of the IMET route are populated per the procedures >>>>>>>> defined >>>>>>>>> in [RFC7432], and the route import rules are as described in >>>>>>>> previous >>>>>>>>> sections. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The route import rules described in previous sections are for MAC >>>>>>>> routes, >>>>>>>>> not IMET routes. Additionally, those rules may not be >>>>>>>>>recommended, >>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>> might as well delete the last sentence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Changed the last sentence to ³Š, and the multicast tunnel setup >>>>>>>> criteria >>>>>>>> are as described in the previous section.² >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Section 3.3.1 talks about BUM procedures. That is not specific to >>>>>>>>> 3.3.1 >>>>>>>>> though. Perhaps extract that out to a separate section, and >>>>>>>>>remove >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> BUM text from 3.3.2 as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it is OK. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The E-TREE Extended Community is encoded as an 8-octet value >>>>>>>>>as >>>>>>>>> follows: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 0 1 2 >>>>>>>>> 3 >>>>>>>>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>>>>>>>>8 9 >>>>>>>>> 0 1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>>>>>>> | Type=0x06 | Sub-Type=0x04 | Flags(1 Octet)| >>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>>>>>>> | Reserved=0 | Leaf Label >>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I assume the octect after the flags octet is also reserved=0. >>>>>>>>> Better >>>>>>>> mark >>>>>>>>> it as "Reserved=0". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Agreed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When it is used with Ethernet A-D per ES route, the leaf flag >>>>>>>>> SHOULD >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> set to 0 but ignored by the receiving routers. Therefore, why not >>>>>>>>> set >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> to 1 to be consistent the MAC/IP route case? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because the flag is used for known unicast traffic and Leaf label >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> BUM >>>>>>>> traffic. We don¹t want to mix the two. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Ali >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>> Jeffrey >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas >>>>>>>>>> Morin >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 3:51 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: BESS <bess@ietf.org>; >>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-et...@tools.ietf.org >>>>>>>>>> Subject: [bess] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello Working Group, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This email starts a Working Group Last Call on >>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree [1] which is considered mature and >>>>>>>>>> ready >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> a final working group review. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please read the document if you haven't read the most recent >>>>>>>>>> version >>>>>>>> yet >>>>>>>>>> (-03), and send your comments to the list, no later than >>>>>>>>>>*February >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> 2nd* (2016-02-02). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is not only a call for comments on the document, but also a >>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> support for its publication. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> applies to draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree, 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-etree please respond to this email and >>>>>>>>>> indicate >>>>>>>>>> whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thomas/Martin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-etree >>>>>>>>>> > >_______________________________________________ >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
