FYI - I deleted this errata report at the request of the submitter.

Thank you,
RFC Editor/rv



> On Jan 11, 2024, at 5:04 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Sasha,
> 
> Andrew will take care of it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:37 AM Alexander Vainshtein 
> <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> wrote:
> Pavel,
> 
> Lots of thanks for your email.
> 
> Looks as we are aligned😊. I am not sure if the reporter of an Erratum can 
> revoke it (never tried this).
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Sasha
> 
>  
> 
> From: Pavel Mykhailyk <pavel.mykhai...@gmail.com> 
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 12:33 PM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>
> Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; rtg-...@ietf.org; 
> bess@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Pals] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7432 (7758)
> 
>  
> 
> Hi
> 
> Sorry, looks like i just misunderstood some terms, so ES route means EVPN 
> Type 4 (not 1) -  you are absolutely right, it is used for DF and limited to 
> PEs that are connected to MH Po.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for clarification
> 
> With Regards
> 
>  
> 
> чт, 11 янв. 2024 г. в 11:56, Alexander Vainshtein 
> <alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com>:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
>  
> 
> IMHO and FWIW the corrected text proposed in this Erratum is technically 
> incorrect, and. Therefore, the Erratum must be rejected.
> 
>  
> 
> Ethernet Segment (EVPN Type 4) routes are used solely for discovery of all 
> PEs that participate in the process of election of the Designated Forwarder 
> (DF)for the specific MH ES, and their parameters that affect the election 
> process (e.g., DF Election algorithm and its parameters).  This includes all 
> the PEs that are attached to the MH ES in question, and none other.
> 
>  
> 
> The PEs that are not attached to the MH ES in question do not participate in 
> the DF election and, by design, are not aware of the DF election results.
> 
> In the case of All-Active multi-homing, there is no need for such PEs to be 
> aware of these results.
> 
> The case of Single-Active multi-homing is addressed by the following 
> statement from Section 8.4 of RFC 7432 (the relevant text is highlighted):
> 
>  
> 
>    The backup path is a closely related function, but it is used in
> 
>    Single-Active redundancy mode.  In this case, a PE also advertises
> 
>    that it has reachability to a given EVI/ES using the same combination
> 
>    of Ethernet A-D per EVI route and Ethernet A-D per ES route as
> 
>    discussed above, but with the "Single-Active" bit in the flags of the
> 
>    ESI Label extended community set to 1.  A remote PE that receives a
> 
>    MAC/IP Advertisement route with a non-reserved ESI SHOULD consider
> 
>    the advertised MAC address to be reachable via any PE that has
> 
>    advertised this combination of Ethernet A-D routes, and it SHOULD
> 
>    install a backup path for that MAC address.
> 
>  
> 
> AFAIK, EVPN implementation that follow the design defined in 7432 have been 
> widely deployed for years.
> 
>  
> 
> My 2c,
> 
> Sasha
> 
>  
> 
> From: Pals <pals-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of RFC Errata System
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 10:03 AM
> To: saja...@cisco.com; raggarw...@yahoo.com; nabil.n.bi...@verizon.com; 
> aisaa...@bloomberg.net; utt...@att.com; jdr...@juniper.net; 
> wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com; aretana.i...@gmail.com; j...@juniper.net; 
> andrew-i...@liquid.tech; gihe...@cisco.com; nabil.n.bi...@verizon.com
> Cc: pavel.mykhai...@gmail.com; p...@ietf.org; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Pals] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7432 (7758)
> 
>  
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7432,
> "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7758
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Pavel Mykhailyk <pavel.mykhai...@gmail.com>
> 
> Section: 8.1.1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> The Ethernet Segment route filtering MUST be done such that the
> Ethernet Segment route is imported only by the PEs that are
> multihomed to the same Ethernet segment
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> The Ethernet Segment route filtering MUST be done such that the
> Ethernet Segment route is imported only by the PEs that are
> connected to same EVI
> 
> Notes
> -----
> In all text in context of evpn-multihoming term ES used for logical set of 
> links - distributed PortChannel when CE use several links to different PEs as 
> single aggregate link. But in section 8.1.1 term ES can't be used in same 
> way, becouse ES routes must be distributed for all PE that hold same VLAN. 
> For example PE1 and PE2 connected to CE1 with EVPN-MH PortChannel (ESI-1) and 
> use VLAN 10, CE2 connected to PE3 and use VLAN 10 but not use any aggregation 
> - not included to any ES. PE3 build mac table for CE1 mac and must use ESI-1 
> as next-hop, so it must apply ES route and not filter it, regardles of local 
> connection to ES in terms of EVPN-MH PortChannel. So each PE connected to EVI 
> import this route
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it 
> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party 
> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7432 (draft-ietf-l2vpn-evpn-11)
> --------------------------------------
> Title : BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN
> Publication Date : February 2015
> Author(s) : A. Sajassi, Ed., R. Aggarwal, N. Bitar, A. Isaac, J. Uttaro, J. 
> Drake, W. Henderickx
> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source : Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks
> Area : Routing
> Stream : IETF
> Verifying Party : IESG
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pals mailing list
> p...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
> 
>  
> 
> Disclaimer
> 
> This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon 
> Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or 
> proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, 
> disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express 
> permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, 
> please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including 
> any attachments.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pals mailing list
> p...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals

_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess

Reply via email to