Sami: Hi!
Let’s go ahead and add the text to explain the operation with VXLAN – I think that the reference to rfc7348 should be Normative. I’ll take care of dealing with the downref when we’re ready with the new text. Thanks! Alvaro. On 4/12/17, 2:14 PM, "Sami Boutros" <sbout...@vmware.com> wrote: Hi Alia, Please see comments inline. On 4/11/17, 4:43 PM, "Alia Atlas" <akat...@gmail.com> wrote: >Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11: Discuss > >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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwICaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=IVzcTRLQdpta08L0b_y2zDkqvwJhRKMCAbX-2K-LV98&m=78sPNErI-rljSFAaM5b76_QaDSTz2BD_8ny0Dxcf4sM&s=s8oat7vUDx6NHV0vOehUl_fLjsLHsTqmht3xIHoOr2I&e= > >for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > >The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Devpn-2Dvpws_&d=DwICaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=IVzcTRLQdpta08L0b_y2zDkqvwJhRKMCAbX-2K-LV98&m=78sPNErI-rljSFAaM5b76_QaDSTz2BD_8ny0Dxcf4sM&s=MlJKXisQTr1aheS8hahty-iFDOCS_GhM37X2lMUAH54&e= > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >DISCUSS: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >First, thank you for a clearly written document that contained enough >context to trigger my hazy >memory of some of the technical details. > >My concern is around this paragraph in the Introduction: > >"The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the > VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN encap, and this VNI may >have > a global scope or local scope per PE and may also be equal to the > VPWS service instance identifier set in the Ethernet A-D route. >" > >First, I recognize that folks have implemented and deployed EVPN with >VXLAN. >That's fine. There is an ISE RFC 7348 that describes VXLAN. Depending >on what >you (authors, shepherd, AD, WG) decide to do about the rest of my >concern, it is >likely that this should be normative references - which would be a >downref. I can add the 7348 as a normative reference. > >Second, the paragraph here isn't really adequate to describe how to >implement the >functionality. I don't see how: > a) The ingress PE decides which VNIs it can send based upon the >VNI=MPLS_label > from the egress. Is there an assumption that VXLAN allows >sending all VNIs across > the particular VPWS, whether port-based, VLAN-based, etc? We are signaling Ethernet A-D route per VPWS instance, and in there we will signal VNI instead of an MPLS label for VxLAN encap. > b) Is there an assumption that the egress PE-advertised MPLS label >also indicates the > VNI to be used? EVPN can work with different encapsulations a BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute That specifies the tunnel type will be added to the Ethernet A-D route. >That seems like another mode, like the >VLAN-based service, except > it is perhaps VNI + VLAN-based service? The draft lists clearly the different service interface types, and there will be only one VNI per VPWS instance wether this is Vlan or port based. > >Please don't take this Discuss as a reason to remove the paragraph and >the implied functionality. >If it's implemented and deployed (and I think it is) - then what I really >want is to just have it >adequately written down so that others can interoperably implement. The >downref to VXLAN >should just be a matter of process nuisance (i.e. another IETF Last Call >and handling any concerns). > Should I add the 7348 as a normative reference? > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >COMMENT: >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >1) (Nit) Sec 3.1 "This draft" for an RFC should be "This document" or >"This specification" or... Will fix. > >2) Sec 3.1: " C If set to 1, a Control word [RFC4448] MUST be >present when sending EVPN packets to this PE." > Given discussions with IEEE about real MACs starting with 4 and 6 in >top nibble, adding a statement about it being BCP to include > the control word (unless using Entropy Label) would be a good idea. > Could you suggest some text? Should I submit -12 with the changes? Thanks, Sami > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
