Hi Sasha,

You’re welcome! Please refer to my comments below in red ...

From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 at 12:17 PM
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected]>, Jeffrey 
(Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>, [email protected] 
<[email protected]>
Cc: BESS <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RFC 9573 and draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Ali,
Lots of thanks for your mail.
Unfortunately, I am not sure I fully understand it.

Does your response mean that, in the case of, say, P2MP MLDP LSPs being used as 
non-aggregated PMSI for delivery of BUM traffic in EVPN, ESI labels for 
All-Active MH ES MUST be upstream allocated by the advertising PEs from the 
appropriate context label spaces and MUST NOT be allocated by an external 
entity from the DCB?

Ali> No, that’s not what it means. From section 8.2.1, you have :

   "If the advertising PE is
   using P2MP MPLS LSPs for sending multicast, broadcast, or unknown
   unicast traffic, then this label MUST be an upstream assigned MPLS
   label, unless DCB allocated labels are used.  The usage of this label
   is described in Section 8.3."

Basically, what it says is that if DCB label is not used, then it MUST be 
upstream assigned because downstream label assignment simply doesn’t work for 
P2MP.
Section 19 just says that DCB is recommended for BIER tunnels.

Cheers,
Ali


Your feedback would be highly appreciated.

Regards,
Sasha

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

________________________________
From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 8:09:52 PM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>; Alexander Vainshtein 
<[email protected]>; [email protected] 
<[email protected]>
Cc: BESS <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RFC 9573 and  draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Hi Guys,

From: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 at 8:00 AM
To: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>, 
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: BESS <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: RFC 9573 and draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis

Hi Sacha,

Since RFC9573 comes before RFC7432bis, we can’t say that RFC9573 updates 
RFC7432bis.
However, draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis does have 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-13#name-use-of-domain-wide-common-b
 that refers to the DCB draft (yes, RFC9573 should be used instead).

Ali> RFC9573 is now used.

Thanks.
Jeffrey



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2025 11:12 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: BESS <[email protected]>
Subject: [bess] RFC 9573 and draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis
Importance: High

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi all,
I have looked up Section 8.3.1.2 of the 7432bis 
draft<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc7432bis-13*section-8.3.1.2__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EOI9UUW6IT3m9U7TYxsCvI04mJg6RopeuA-syM_Sa98f6Vy4KlMrDGCedNXZqGhTGB9bhsGvh0VGRnuZx0FST2mwNs2pdRoh$>,
 and it looks the same as the namesake section of RFC 
7432<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7432*section-8.3.1.2__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EOI9UUW6IT3m9U7TYxsCvI04mJg6RopeuA-syM_Sa98f6Vy4KlMrDGCedNXZqGhTGB9bhsGvh0VGRnuZx0FST2mwNka1QUbd$>:
 both documents assume that, in the case of P2MP LSPs being used for delivery 
of BUM traffic in EVPN, ESI labels are upstream-allocated from appropriate 
context label spaces.

However, RFC 7432 has been updated by RFC 
9573<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9573__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EOI9UUW6IT3m9U7TYxsCvI04mJg6RopeuA-syM_Sa98f6Vy4KlMrDGCedNXZqGhTGB9bhsGvh0VGRnuZx0FST2mwNoLhl_65$>
 with regard to allocation of ESI labels: these labels can be allocated from 
the Domain Common Block (DCB) per MH ES by an external management entity and 
not from the contest-specific label space. Such usage MUST be indicating by 
setting the DCB Flag in the PTA in the IMET (EVPN Type 3) route.

The metadata for RFC 7432 explicitly states that it is updated by RFC  9573 – 
but this update seems to be ignored in the 7432bis draft.

What, if anything, did I miss?

Regards, and lost of thanks in advance,
Sasha



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.

_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to