Re: [bess] a question about bundled service in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08
Thanks Ali. On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) wrote: > > Hi Anoop, > > The provided text is fine. Given that it is just a minor clarification > text, I think it should be OK to incorporate it; however, I need to check > with the chairs and the AD given that this draft has already gone through > the WG LC. > > Cheers, > Ali > > From: on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani < > an...@alumni.duke.edu> > Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:11 AM > To: Cisco Employee > Cc: "bess@ietf.org" , "n...@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [bess] a question about bundled service in > draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08 > > Thanks Ali. > > May be worth modifying the sentence below to say: > >>> > > 8) When a 802.1Q interface is used between a CE and a PE, each of the >VLAN ID (VID) on that interface can be mapped onto a bridge table >(for upto 4094 such bridge tables). More than one bridge table may be >mapped onto a single MAC-VRF (in case of VLAN-aware bundle service). > > >>> > > Anoop > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) > wrote: > >> >> From: BESS on behalf of Anoop Ghanwani < >> an...@alumni.duke.edu> >> Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:39 PM >> To: "bess@ietf.org" >> Subject: [bess] a question about bundled service in >> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08 >> >> >> This is what the draft says about bundled service: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-08#section-4 >> >>> >> >> 8) When a 802.1Q interface is used between a CE and a PE, each of the >>VLAN ID (VID) on that interface can be mapped onto a bridge table >>(for upto 4094 such bridge tables). All these bridge tables may be >>mapped onto a single MAC-VRF (in case of VLAN-aware bundle service). >> >> >>> >> >> So it sounds like 1:1 is supported (that's the straightforward case where >> the inner VLAD ID is stripped from the encap'ed packet) and All:1 is >> supported (i.e. the service is blind to the incoming tag and just preserves >> it as is, potentially with normalization if translation is required). >> >> What about the case for n:1 where I want some subset of VLAN IDs coming >> in on a port to map to VNID1, and another subset map to VNID2? Is that >> explicitly disallowed? If so, why? >> >> That’s is also supported. Refer to section 6 of RFC 7432 for different >> service interfaces that are supported. >> >> Cheers, >> Ali >> >> Thanks, >> Anoop >> >> >> >> > ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] My fumbled answer :-)
Adrian, the question is mainly what we are trying to achieve here with the draft. If the goal is providing E2E SR-TE and utilizing all paths between the different DC(s) e.g. SR-TE policy does this as well. You advertise a BGP SR-TE-policy with the different paths and you bind the prefix to them using the BGP-NH/colour. You can define a colour and weights and preferences to determine if you want to use ECMP, different weights or active standby, etc. A similar use case is described here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-policy-01 I am mainly arguing the way we convey the different SR-TE path information. With SR-TE policy you get a level of indirection which means every time the path changes you don’t need to re-advertise the prefix, but just update the SR-TE policy update. What is not part of SR-TE policy is GW discovery and you would need a controller to achieve the same thing. Hope this clarifies On 20/07/2017, 16:29, "Adrian Farrel" wrote: Hi Wim, That wasn't my most glorious moment :-) I don't think that draft-drake-bess-datacenter-gateway and draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy are anything other than complementary. Nor, apparently does Eric as he is a co-author of both documents :-) I think high-level document names can sometimes lead to some confusion, but the combination of "BGP", "SR", and "TE" in the same overviews only goes to show that they are in the same general space, not that they overlap. If you take a look at draft-farrel-spring-sr-domain-interconnect-00 you'll see it references [I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] (now adopted by the IDR working group) as the assumed mechanism for advertising intra-AS links that are SR TE policies. We also note that [I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] offers a method for label stack compression. I think the two mechanisms provide different functions, but functions that could (or even should) be integrated into a deployable solution. Thanks (and sorry again), Adrian ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] My fumbled answer :-)
Hi Wim, That wasn't my most glorious moment :-) I don't think that draft-drake-bess-datacenter-gateway and draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy are anything other than complementary. Nor, apparently does Eric as he is a co-author of both documents :-) I think high-level document names can sometimes lead to some confusion, but the combination of "BGP", "SR", and "TE" in the same overviews only goes to show that they are in the same general space, not that they overlap. If you take a look at draft-farrel-spring-sr-domain-interconnect-00 you'll see it references [I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] (now adopted by the IDR working group) as the assumed mechanism for advertising intra-AS links that are SR TE policies. We also note that [I-D.previdi-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] offers a method for label stack compression. I think the two mechanisms provide different functions, but functions that could (or even should) be integrated into a deployable solution. Thanks (and sorry again), Adrian ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess