Hi Jorge,
i was thinking over your comment on fast leave. Do we really need text around
that ? Here are my thoughts
1. In case of multihoming it would be expected that user does identical
configuration on both bridge port. So immediate leave MUST be configured on
bridge port on redundant PEs.
2. In reality IGMP leave would always hit IGMP snooping first. and then
route would be processed by EVPN. So why can we not leave it to igmp snooping
to act on Leave locally . so
* If immediate leave is configured, snooping can sync leave as well as
withdraw the join.
* on remote side when you get leave, you would see locally bridge port
is configured to act immediate leave. so it can process it accordingly.
if you think, it is still not clear, may be we can have quick webex & white
board. To me looks like, we might not need any extra text , local snooping
implementation should automatically take care of this.
On Mar 21, 2018, at 8:10 AM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)
<jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>> wrote:
Hi Ali,
Yes, the Fast Leave option is used pretty often, and the caveats are no
different than what we are discussing here. Only directly connected receivers
or directly connected proxy-CEs.
I'm good with your replies. We are in synch now.
Looking forward to seeing the next revision.
Thank you!
Jorge
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <saja...@cisco.com<mailto:saja...@cisco.com>>
Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 11:48 AM
To: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
<jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>,
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org>"
<draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org>>
Cc: "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: About draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy
Hi Jorge,
Please refer to my comments inline marked w/ "Ali>"
On 3/21/18, 1:59 AM, "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View)"
<jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>> wrote:
Ali and authors,
As discussed during the BESS session, these are the points that I think
should be addressed in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy before WG LC:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Fast Leave text addition
There are quite a few igmp-snooping implementations in the market that
support a “Fast Leave” mechanism. EVPN should incorporate/document this too,
since it is a pretty common use-case.
Implementations allow the use of "Fast Leave" when the IGMP host is
directly connected to the PE/NVE or the directly connected CE does igmp-proxy
(and only in those cases). Fast Leave is a local administrative option on each
AC, that, if enabled, allows the removal of a (x,G) state immediately after the
reception of an IGMP Leave message for the (x,G).
Ali> But the option of "fast-leave" requires for the PE to do host tracking
and in case of IGMPv2, if there are more than one hosts is sitting behind an
AC, it is difficult to do host-tracking because of the report suppression in
IGMPv2 !! So, if used, it needs to be used with caution for only a single host
for IGMPv2. I can add this "fast-tracking" as an option (MAY) but with the
caveats that it has !!
In the email below, I was suggesting that in some cases the IGMP Leave
synch route can be avoided; however Mankamana made me see that, in the Fast
Leave procedure, the PE receiving the IGMP Leave on the ES' AC, should always
send an IGMP Leave sync route with an indication that the (x,G) state must be
removed immediately. Mankamana suggested MRT=0 (Max Response Time=0) in the
route could give that indication to the other PEs in the ES.
Ali> Yes, fast-leave (if used) still need to be synchronized among
multi-homing PEs (
Authors, can you please add text about Fast Leave?
Ali> Since majority of existing implementation support "fast-leave", we can
add it as an option (MAY) with the caveats that I described above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Conflicting text about advertising SMET route when there are local
sources
"3.2 PE with mixed of attached hosts/VMs and multicast source
The main difference in here is that when PE2 receives IGMPv3 Join
from H7 for (S2,G2), it does not advertises it in BGP because PE2
knows that S2 is attached to its local AC."
[JORGE] the above is contradicting this previous statement:
"When the first hop PE receives an IGMPv3 Join for (S,G) on a given
BD, it advertises the corresponding EVPN Selective Multicast Ethernet
Tag (SMET) route regardless of whether the source (S) is attached to
itself or not in order to facilitate the source move in the future."
[JORGE] I tend to agree with the latter statement. It simplifies the
procedure.
Ali> Since EVPN inherently supports workload mobility, the latter should be
the default mode of operation. I guess, we can have an option (MAY) for the
former one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Confusing text in section 7.1.1 about local-bias:
"The Originator Router Address is the IP address of Router Originating
the prefix. It should be noted that using the "Originating Router's
IP address" field is needed for local-bias procedures and may be
needed for building inter-AS multicast underlay tunnels where BGP
next hop can get over written."
While I agree with the need for this field in Inter-AS, but why would
you need to check the SMET originating-ip for local bias?
Ali> It is just inter-AS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Minor one: description of Maximum Response Time and Sequence number
missing in section 7.3 and 7.3.1.
Although both are roughly explained in section 4.2, the description of
the fields and allowed values is missing in the section that describes the IGMP
Leave synch route.
Ali> We'll add it.
Cheers,
Ali
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The below email captures the points I made during the adoption, but they
are no longer valid anyway, so please, disregard. However the above points are
the ones I think should be addressed now.
Thank you!
Jorge
-----Original Message-----
From: "Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US)"
<jorge.raba...@nokia.com<mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com>>
Date: Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 8:30 AM
To: Thomas Morin
<thomas.mo...@orange.com<mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>>,
"bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc:
"draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org>"
<draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [bess] Call for adoption:
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-01
I support this document for WG adoption.
Having said that, I made a few observations to the authors, and I
believe they agreed to make some changes in the next revision. The main things
that I believe should be reflected in the next rev after WG adoption are:
1- Simplified BGP route encoding
I discussed with the authors that the Join and Leave synch behavior
may have been achieved with a single route type, as opposed to the proposed two
types (type 7 and 8).
The authors believe it is better to keep both, which is ok, but:
a) the route type 8 – IGMP leave synch route – should be simplified:
the max response time and sequence number fields in the route introduce an
unnecesary complexity and should be removed.
b) Route type 8 should be optional since: i) It is actually not
needed for IGMPv1 and 2) It is not needed either if a fast leave mechanism is
used (see point 2).
2- Fast Leave addition to the draft
There are quite a few igmp-snooping implementations in the market
that support a “Fast Leave” mechanism. EVPN should incorporate/document this
too.
Implementations allow the use of "Fast Leave" when the IGMP host is
directly connected to the PE/NVE and, only in that case is recommended. Fast
Leave is a local administrative option on the PE, that, if enabled, allows the
removal of a (x,G) state immediately after the reception of an IGMP Leave
message for the (x,G). In the case of an ES AC, Fast Leave is only allowed in
the case that a single IGMP host is multi-homed to the PEs in the ES. When Fast
Leave is configured in an ES AC, the reception of an IGMP Leave message will
remove the (x,G) state for the ES AC immediately and will trigger the
withdrawal of the IGMP State Synch route. Assuming the remote PE is configured
for "Fast Leave" too, the reception of the (x,G) route withdrawal for the ES
will remove the (x,G) state completely.
3- Multicast Flags EC
The Tunnel Type field looks not big enough for the different tunnel
types that EVPN can use. I would recommend taking more space from the reserved
bits and include all the allocated tunnel types in here:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#pmsi-tunnel-types
Thank you.
Jorge
On 1/31/17, 3:58 PM, "BESS on behalf of Thomas Morin"
<bess-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of
thomas.mo...@orange.com<mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>> wrote:
Hello working group,
This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-01 [1] as a working group
item.
Please send comments to the list and state if you support
adoption or
not (in the later case, please also state the reasons).
This poll runs until **February 14th**.
*Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR
that
applies to this draft, 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
please
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware
of any
relevant IPR.
The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received
from
each author and contributor.
If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please
explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not
yet
been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
Thank you,
Martin & Thomas
bess chairs
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sajassi-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-01
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org<mailto:BESS@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
