All,
Post WGLC before IETF Singapore it came to our notice that there were
implementation discrepancies of this draft
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-04#section-9.3).
Though draft had NLRI definition as
+--------------------------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Ethernet Segment Identifier (10 octets) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Multicast Source Length (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Multicast Source Address (variable) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Multicast Group Length (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Multicast Group Address (Variable) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Originator Router Length (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Originator Router Address (variable) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Leave Group Synchronization # (4 octets) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Maximum Response Time (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Flags (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Where there was Leave Group Synchronization number as part of NLRI. But two
implementation were
1. With this field as part of NLRI
2. Without this field as part of NLRI
Implementation survey As of 2019:
Since it came to notice that at least there are two implementation which would
not interop, we did try to take survey of other implementation. We tried it
with IETF & Nanog forum. We reached out to some of vendors directly as well.
And implementation were
Cisco – Without Seq number
Juniper – With Seq number
Arista - with and without sequence number
Apart from these vendors, we did not get response from any one else who had
implemented these routes.
Before IETF 106 (Singapore) there were couple of discussion among authors &
other vendors. And it was evident that there are two implementation which would
not interop as is. And Sequence number for IGMP does not have any value or
need. And majority of vendors were ok to remove this field from NLRI as there
is no practical use case. So one of the proposal was to remove the field. And
to make sure we interop with old version proposal was to
1. Remove Seq number from NLRI
2. RR MUST accept both len of NLRI
IETF 106 Update :
These changes were presented in IETF 106 Singapore as well.
Implementation Changes post IETF106, As of Today:
Nokia - Implemented without Seq number, and RR supports both length
Cisco - Modified implementation to make sure as RR we support both len
Arista - Already had this implementation to support both len.
Update in Draft :
+--------------------------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Ethernet Segment Identifier (10 octets) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Multicast Source Length (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Multicast Source Address (variable) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Multicast Group Length (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Multicast Group Address (Variable) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Originator Router Length (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Originator Router Address (variable) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Leave Group Synchronization # (4 octets) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Maximum Response Time (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Flags (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
1. Removed Seq number from EVPN route type 8
2. Added text stating older version of draft had 4 byte extra and RR MUST
accept and reflect both length.
WGLC :
It had been discussed with chairs, and agreed upon one more short WGLC once
changes are posted
Before publishing the draft, we wanted to make sure if there are any other
vendor have any concern.
Mankamana
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
