Hi Wen,
The text in RFC7432bis for section 8.5 is basically a clarification to RFC7432
and has been around for several years (i.e., introduced in 2021) to ensure that
the order list for DF election is uniformly formed among all the participating
PEs in the redundancy group. The intention of RFC7432 was always to allow a mix
of IPv4 and v6 in the DF list. So, if the RFC7432 was implemented as intended,
then there is no interop or backward compatibility issue (i.e., sort the list
based on v4 first and then v6 and further more based on the lowest value
first). And if it wasn’t, then we would have an interop issue for those
implementation of RFC7432 (i.e., it would be an interop issue and NOT backward
compatibility issue!).
Cheers,
Ali
From: Wen Lin <wlin=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Thursday, May 30, 2024 at 7:32 AM
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>,
i-d-annou...@ietf.org <i-d-annou...@ietf.org>
Cc: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt
Hi Ali,
Under RFC7432, the ordered list used for electing the DF/BDF is formed based
solely on the numerical value of each router’s IP address, the originating
router’s IP address. RFC7432-bis introduces a refinement, i.e., the ordered
list is now formed based on the tuple of each router’s IP address length and
its numerical value.
It would be helpful to add some text to clarify whether there is any backward
combability issue if we have a mixed of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for the
originating router’s IP addresses in the network and with some routers running
DF election based on RFC7432 and others based on RFC7432-bis.
Thanks,
Wen
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 11:48 PM
To: Wen Lin <w...@juniper.net>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>,
i-d-annou...@ietf.org <i-d-annou...@ietf.org>
Cc: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Wen,
There shouldn’t be any backward compatibility issue as section 8.5 states:
“Every PE is then given an ordinal
indicating its position in the ordered list, starting with 0 as
the ordinal for the PE with the lowest IP address length and
numeric value tuple. The tuple list is ordered by the IP address
length first and IP address value second.”
Because IP address length is factored into sorting the list, both IPv4 and IPv6
are allowed to be in the list. This is the expected behavior because in a
simple of dual-homing, an ES can span across two ASes with different address
families.
Cheers,
Ali
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Wen Lin <wlin=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 12:47 PM
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>,
i-d-annou...@ietf.org <i-d-annou...@ietf.org>
Cc: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt
Hi Ali,
Thank you for providing the following text.
I think it will be helpful to mention the backward compatibility issue
regarding the change introduced in DF election (Section 8.5) as we need to
consider the possibility of originating router’s IP addresses coming in with
different IP address families.
Thanks,
Wen
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at 1:55 PM
To: Wen Lin <w...@juniper.net>, bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>,
i-d-annou...@ietf.org <i-d-annou...@ietf.org>
Cc: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Hi Wen,
I am thinking of adding the following paragraph as a clarification for the
originating router’s IP address.
“The Originating Router’s IP address does not need to be a routable address and
its purpose is to identify the originator of that EVPN route uniquely. It can
be either IPv4 or IPv6 address independent of the BGP next hop address type for
that NLRI and it must remain the same for all EVPN routes advertised by that
PE.”
Cheers,
Ali
Juniper Business Use Only
From: Wen Lin <wlin=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>
Date: Friday, May 10, 2024 at 11:06 AM
To: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>, i-d-annou...@ietf.org <i-d-annou...@ietf.org>
Cc: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: [bess] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt
Thank you for the updated draft.
I think we need to explicitly specify how we set the Originating Router’s IP
address – when it will be to IPv6 or IPv4 address for both Ethernet Segment
Route and Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Route. Today, there is no
mentioning about it in the draft.
7.4.
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09*section-7.4__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!D8FxrZ9AXM1VDe0Lr_x1vfnVhlT_Aa-m2k5dfbuYNwjcHjUrl4PwNDjonwQ2by0T_aS2klGdRdmVhPe9_ee4pOSj3vUNqw$>
Ethernet Segment
Route<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09*name-ethernet-segment-route__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!D8FxrZ9AXM1VDe0Lr_x1vfnVhlT_Aa-m2k5dfbuYNwjcHjUrl4PwNDjonwQ2by0T_aS2klGdRdmVhPe9_ee4pOQZKTSEyg$>
+---------------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
|Ethernet Segment Identifier (10 octets)|
+---------------------------------------+
| IP Address Length (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+
| Originating Router's IP Address |
| (4 or 16 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
We need to add definition or reference for the Originating Router’s IP Address.
7.3.
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09*section-7.3__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!D8FxrZ9AXM1VDe0Lr_x1vfnVhlT_Aa-m2k5dfbuYNwjcHjUrl4PwNDjonwQ2by0T_aS2klGdRdmVhPe9_ee4pORjQTaKBA$>
Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag
Route<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09*name-inclusive-multicast-etherne__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!D8FxrZ9AXM1VDe0Lr_x1vfnVhlT_Aa-m2k5dfbuYNwjcHjUrl4PwNDjonwQ2by0T_aS2klGdRdmVhPe9_ee4pOSIekbGxQ$>
+---------------------------------------+
| RD (8 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| Ethernet Tag ID (4 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
| IP Address Length (1 octet) |
+---------------------------------------+
| Originating Router's IP Address |
| (4 or 16 octets) |
+---------------------------------------+
For IMET route, we have the following definition in section 11.1:
“The Originating Router's IP Address field value MUST be set to an IP address
of the PE that should be common for all the EVIs on the PE (e.g., this address
may be the PE's loopback address). The IP Address Length field is in bits.”
A router may have both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses configured for the loopback. We
need to specify when IPv6 address will be used based on whether EVPN is used
IPv4 or IPv6 underlay.
Thanks,
Wen
Juniper Business Use Only
From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org
<internet-dra...@ietf.org>
Date: Friday, May 3, 2024 at 12:42 AM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org <i-d-annou...@ietf.org>
Cc: bess@ietf.org <bess@ietf.org>
Subject: [bess] I-D Action: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt
[External Email. Be cautious of content]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt is now available. It is a
work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS (BESS) WG of the IETF.
Title: BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN
Authors: Ali Sajassi
Luc Andre Burdet
John Drake
Jorge Rabadan
Name: draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09.txt
Pages: 73
Dates: 2024-05-02
Abstract:
This document describes procedures for Ethernet VPN (EVPN), a BGP
MPLS-based solution which addresses the requirements specified in the
corresponding RFC - "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)". This
document obsoletes RFC7432 (BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN) and updates
RFC8214 (Virtual Private Wire Service Support in Ethernet VPN).
The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DQNdb1zziDhGamgqVCqazNaTWtGRyB4JfRJn_4PBJ-meIo5dUeuj3X1ZZzUL6Ak1xr3TX2QD68p6Le_VrAUK3PyL$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DQNdb1zziDhGamgqVCqazNaTWtGRyB4JfRJn_4PBJ-meIo5dUeuj3X1ZZzUL6Ak1xr3TX2QD68p6Le_VrAUK3PyL$>
There is also an HTMLized version available at:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DQNdb1zziDhGamgqVCqazNaTWtGRyB4JfRJn_4PBJ-meIo5dUeuj3X1ZZzUL6Ak1xr3TX2QD68p6Le_VrD-_D2Jy$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DQNdb1zziDhGamgqVCqazNaTWtGRyB4JfRJn_4PBJ-meIo5dUeuj3X1ZZzUL6Ak1xr3TX2QD68p6Le_VrD-_D2Jy$>
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DQNdb1zziDhGamgqVCqazNaTWtGRyB4JfRJn_4PBJ-meIo5dUeuj3X1ZZzUL6Ak1xr3TX2QD68p6Le_VrF5Wvh7P$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-09__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DQNdb1zziDhGamgqVCqazNaTWtGRyB4JfRJn_4PBJ-meIo5dUeuj3X1ZZzUL6Ak1xr3TX2QD68p6Le_VrF5Wvh7P$>
Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DQNdb1zziDhGamgqVCqazNaTWtGRyB4JfRJn_4PBJ-meIo5dUeuj3X1ZZzUL6Ak1xr3TX2QD68p6Le_VrCT0gLFF$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!DQNdb1zziDhGamgqVCqazNaTWtGRyB4JfRJn_4PBJ-meIo5dUeuj3X1ZZzUL6Ak1xr3TX2QD68p6Le_VrCT0gLFF$>
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
