date:20211012

Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

2021-10-12 Thread Dikshit, Saumya

Hi Mathew,

+1 on going ahead with this draft.
As Greg suggested in the other thread, we can draft an extension to include the 
new proposal.

Thanks
Saumya.

From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - 
GB)
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:17 PM
To: Greg Mirsky ; BESS 
Cc: Greg Mirsky ; sajassi=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org; John E Drake 

Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

Greg

Thank you

I am good to close the implementation poll, but I believe there may be some 
outstanding comments to address from Saumya on the other thread. Please can you 
look at that?

Thanks

Matthew

From: Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:41
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>, BESS 
mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc: John E Drake 
mailto:jdrake=40juniper@dmarc.ietf.org>>,
 sajassi=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org 
mailto:sajassi=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>,
 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org
 
mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>>,
 Greg Mirsky mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>>
Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
Hi Matthew and BESS WG,
I was informed that our product does support using most of the sub-TLVs defined 
in the draft. Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding 
the implementation.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 2:36 PM 
mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>> wrote:

Hi Matthew,

my apologies for the belated response:

  1.  I am still awaiting a response from our product team on whether any part 
of the draft is supported.
  2.  I concur with Ali. LSP Ping is a broadly used OAM tool detecting and 
localizing failures, including discrepancies between the data and control 
planes. The document defines necessary Target FEC sub-TLVs for EVPN and MVPN 
cases.



Regards,

Greg Mirsky



Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D 
Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division


[cid:image001.gif@01D7C016.D9BF37C0]
[cid:image002.gif@01D7C016.D9BF37C0]
E: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com
www.zte.com.cn
Original Mail
Sender: JohnEDrake
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi);Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - 
GB);bess@ietf.org;draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org;
Date: 2021/08/31 11:34
Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Hi,

I agree with Ali.

Yours Irrespectively,

John



Juniper Business Use Only
From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of 
Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 9:54 PM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>; 
bess@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Matthew,

Some of the co-authors are on PTO and I couldn’t reach them (typical of the 
month of August). So, I’d like to get a bit more extension.

Regarding the two questions below:

  1.  My company hasn’t implemented it.
  2.  I do think that we should process with the publication as it describes 
how LSP ping can be used to detect data-plane failures for various EVPN 
functionality including aliasing, split-horizon filtering using ESI label, 
multicast, l2-unicast, l3-unicast, IRB, etc. For MPLS transport tunnel, I am 
not aware of any other tool/draft that allows us to do data-plane failure 
detection. Thus, I think it is important to proceed with its publications.

Still I’d like to hear from other co-authors and other people in this community.

Regards,
Ali

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>
Date: Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:25 AM
To: bess@ietf.org mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org
 
mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
WG and Authors

Unfortunately I have not seen any responses indicating that there are any known 
implementations of this draft. I also did not see any responses to Stephane's 
question if we should proceed regardless.

As per the BESS WG implementation policy 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw/),
 please can you respond to this email indicating eit

Re: [bess] Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

2021-10-12 Thread Dikshit, Saumya

Hi Greg,

Thank you for acknowledging.
I agree that a new extension draft should be written to include below proposals.

+1 on progressing with current state of this draft draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping

Thanks
Saumya.

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 9:39 PM
To: Dikshit, Saumya ; BESS 
Cc: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org; Parag Jain (paragj) 

Subject: Re: Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

Hi Saumya,
thank you for sharing your ideas about extending EVNP LSP Ping functionality. 
These are interesting and useful proposals that, in my opinion, further extend 
the basic functionality of EVNP LSP Ping as defined in the draft. I'll be happy 
to discuss and work with you and others on a new document to introduce new 
extensions. In the meantime, progressing the current version of the EVPN LSP 
Ping document with the "classic" 8209-style scope is extremely important for 
network operators that need standard-based OAM tools in their toolboxes.
What is your opinion?

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:24 AM Dikshit, Saumya 
mailto:saumya.diks...@hpe.com>> wrote:
Multicasting it to authors of the draft, if the below use cases and (potential) 
solution can be made as part of this draft.

Thanks
Saumya.



From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On 
Behalf Of Dikshit, Saumya
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 7:31 PM
To: Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>>
Cc: 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org;
 bess-cha...@ietf.org; Parag Jain (paragj) 
mailto:par...@cisco.com>>; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

Thank you Greg.

+1 on this drafts compliance to RFC8209.

There are couple of requirements spelled out in the email below, summarizing it 
here as well:

1.   Allow wild-card/don’t-care values for attributes carried in the 
sub-TLVs as it will surely help when all details are not available. To draw 
parallels I see it equivalent to querying for an (potential) NLRI in a BGP-EVPN 
RIB via a management interface, where in all parameters hard to gather.

2. Test the reachability to tenant-VRF VRF_X (with EVPN mapped EVI) 
configured on the remote PE, PE1. VRF_X has no active IP/IPv6 interface 
configured and its sole usage is to obtain the leaked (via IVRL) routes from 
other VRFs (non-EVPN) and PE1 publishes this to other peers via EVPN control 
plane. Till the first prefix (learnt ) route is published (Route Type 5) by PE1 
for the EVI (mapped to VRF_X), the tunnels will not be provisioned on other 
PEs. Hence an lsp-ping to validate the configuration of VRF_X on remote PE 
should help here.
If this can be achieved by incremental changes to this draft, shall be helpful. 
#2 requirement is equally applicable to VRF-LITE as well and can be called out 
an extension to rfc8209.
Regards,
Saumya.

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 12:23 AM
To: Dikshit, Saumya mailto:saumya.diks...@hpe.com>>
Cc: Parag Jain (paragj) mailto:par...@cisco.com>>; 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org;
 bess@ietf.org; 
bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

Hi Saumya,
thank you for your comments and questions.
As I understand the draft, it does not update RFC 8029 and, as a result, 
everything that has been defined in RFC 8029 is fully applicable and can be 
used in EVPN and MVPN environments. If there's any part of the text that is not 
clear, please let me know and we can work together on improving it.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:02 AM Dikshit, Saumya 
mailto:saumya.diks...@hpe.com>> wrote:
Hi Parag,

Thank you for the response. Please see inline with tag [SD2] and provide your 
further inputs.

Thanks
Saumya.

From: Parag Jain (paragj) [mailto:par...@cisco.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 8:19 PM
To: Dikshit, Saumya mailto:saumya.diks...@hpe.com>>; 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org;
 bess@ietf.org
Cc: bess-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

Hi Saumya

Pls see inline.

From: "Dikshit, Saumya" mailto:saumya.diks...@hpe.com>>
Date: Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 3:54 AM
To: "Parag Jain (paragj)" mailto:par...@cisco.com>>, 
"draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org"
 
mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>>,
 "bess@ietf.org" mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc: "bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
mailto:bess-cha...@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

Hi Parag,

Please see inlin

Re: [bess] Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

2021-10-12 Thread Greg Mirsky

Hi Saumya,
thank you for sharing your ideas about extending EVNP LSP Ping
functionality. These are interesting and useful proposals that, in my
opinion, further extend the basic functionality of EVNP LSP Ping as defined
in the draft. I'll be happy to discuss and work with you and others on a
new document to introduce new extensions. In the meantime, progressing the
current version of the EVPN LSP Ping document with the "classic" 8209-style
scope is extremely important for network operators that need standard-based
OAM tools in their toolboxes.
What is your opinion?

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 7:24 AM Dikshit, Saumya 
wrote:

> Multicasting it to authors of the draft, if the below use cases and
> (potential) solution can be made as part of this draft.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Saumya.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Dikshit, Saumya
> *Sent:* Monday, September 13, 2021 7:31 PM
> *To:* Greg Mirsky 
> *Cc:* draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org; bess-cha...@ietf.org; Parag
> Jain (paragj) ; bess@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bess] Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
>
>
>
> Thank you Greg.
>
>
>
> +1 on this drafts compliance to RFC8209.
>
>
>
> There are couple of requirements spelled out in the email below,
> summarizing it here as well:
>
> 1.   Allow wild-card/don’t-care values for attributes carried in the
> sub-TLVs as it will surely help when all details are not available. To draw
> parallels I see it equivalent to querying for an (potential) NLRI in a
> BGP-EVPN RIB via a management interface, where in all parameters hard to
> gather.
>
> 2. Test the reachability to tenant-VRF VRF_X (with EVPN mapped EVI)
> configured on the remote PE, PE1. VRF_X has *no active IP/IPv6 interface
> configured* and its sole usage is to *obtain the leaked (via IVRL) routes*
> from other VRFs (non-EVPN) and PE1 publishes this to other peers via EVPN
> control plane. Till the first prefix (learnt ) route is published (Route
> Type 5) by PE1 for the EVI (mapped to VRF_X), the tunnels will not be
> provisioned on other PEs. Hence an lsp-ping to validate the configuration
> of VRF_X on remote PE should help here.
>
> If this can be achieved by incremental changes to this draft, shall be
> helpful. #2 requirement is equally applicable to VRF-LITE as well and can
> be called out an extension to rfc8209.
>
> Regards,
>
> Saumya.
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com ]
>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 13, 2021 12:23 AM
> *To:* Dikshit, Saumya 
> *Cc:* Parag Jain (paragj) ;
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org;
> bess-cha...@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
>
>
>
> Hi Saumya,
>
> thank you for your comments and questions.
>
> As I understand the draft, it does not update RFC 8029 and, as a result,
> everything that has been defined in RFC 8029 is fully applicable and can be
> used in EVPN and MVPN environments. If there's any part of the text that is
> not clear, please let me know and we can work together on improving it.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:02 AM Dikshit, Saumya 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Parag,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the response. Please see inline with tag [SD2] and provide
> your further inputs.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Saumya.
>
>
>
> *From:* Parag Jain (paragj) [mailto:par...@cisco.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 11, 2021 8:19 PM
> *To:* Dikshit, Saumya ;
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
> *Cc:* bess-cha...@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
>
>
>
> Hi Saumya
>
>
>
> Pls see inline.
>
>
>
> *From: *"Dikshit, Saumya" 
> *Date: *Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 3:54 AM
> *To: *"Parag Jain (paragj)" , "
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" 
> *Cc: *"bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
> *Subject: *RE: Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
>
>
>
> Hi Parag,
>
>
>
> Please see inline. Let me know your thoughts.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Saumya.
>
>
>
> *From:* Parag Jain (paragj) [mailto:par...@cisco.com ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:43 PM
> *To:* Dikshit, Saumya ;
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
> *Cc:* bess-cha...@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
>
>
>
> Hi Saumya
>
>
>
> Pls see inline.
>
>
>
> *From: *"Dikshit, Saumya" 
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 3:22 PM
> *To: *"Parag Jain (paragj)" , "
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" 
> *Cc: *"bess-cha...@ietf.org" 
> *Subject: *RE: Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
>
>
>
> Hi Parag,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the response. I have few bullets on the same.
>
> Please help clarify and if there is a need to call them out explicitly.
>
>
>
>1. “Consistency checkers” feature-set does validates the CP-DP parity
>and can be leverag

Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

2021-10-12 Thread Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)

Greg

Thank you

I am good to close the implementation poll, but I believe there may be some 
outstanding comments to address from Saumya on the other thread. Please can you 
look at that?

Thanks

Matthew

From: Greg Mirsky 
Date: Friday, 3 September 2021 at 15:41
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) , BESS 
Cc: John E Drake , 
sajassi=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org , 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org 
, Greg Mirsky 
Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
Hi Matthew and BESS WG,
I was informed that our product does support using most of the sub-TLVs defined 
in the draft. Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding 
the implementation.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 2:36 PM 
mailto:gregory.mir...@ztetx.com>> wrote:

Hi Matthew,

my apologies for the belated response:

  1.  I am still awaiting a response from our product team on whether any part 
of the draft is supported.
  2.  I concur with Ali. LSP Ping is a broadly used OAM tool detecting and 
localizing failures, including discrepancies between the data and control 
planes. The document defines necessary Target FEC sub-TLVs for EVPN and MVPN 
cases.



Regards,

Greg Mirsky



Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D 
Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division


[cid:image001.gif@01D7BF4E.0D139360]
[cid:image002.gif@01D7BF4E.0D139360]
E: gregory.mir...@ztetx.com
www.zte.com.cn
Original Mail
Sender: JohnEDrake
To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi);Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - 
GB);bess@ietf.org;draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org;
Date: 2021/08/31 11:34
Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Hi,

I agree with Ali.

Yours Irrespectively,

John



Juniper Business Use Only
From: BESS mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of 
Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 9:54 PM
To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>; 
bess@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Matthew,

Some of the co-authors are on PTO and I couldn’t reach them (typical of the 
month of August). So, I’d like to get a bit more extension.

Regarding the two questions below:

  1.  My company hasn’t implemented it.
  2.  I do think that we should process with the publication as it describes 
how LSP ping can be used to detect data-plane failures for various EVPN 
functionality including aliasing, split-horizon filtering using ESI label, 
multicast, l2-unicast, l3-unicast, IRB, etc. For MPLS transport tunnel, I am 
not aware of any other tool/draft that allows us to do data-plane failure 
detection. Thus, I think it is important to proceed with its publications.

Still I’d like to hear from other co-authors and other people in this community.

Regards,
Ali

From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) 
mailto:matthew.bo...@nokia.com>>
Date: Monday, August 9, 2021 at 6:25 AM
To: bess@ietf.org mailto:bess@ietf.org>>, 
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org
 
mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-p...@ietf.org>>
Subject: Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05
WG and Authors

Unfortunately I have not seen any responses indicating that there are any known 
implementations of this draft. I also did not see any responses to Stephane's 
question if we should proceed regardless.

As per the BESS WG implementation policy 
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw/),
 please can you respond to this email indicating either:

- That you are aware of any implementations (ideally providing some details)
- If you are not aware of any, if you think the WG should proceed with the 
draft's publication and why.

I will close this poll on 25th August 2021.

Regards

Matthew


On 14/06/2021, 17:38, "BESS on behalf of 
internet-dra...@ietf.org" 
mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20internet-dra...@ietf.org>>
 wrote:


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the BGP Enabled ServiceS WG of the IETF.

Title   : LSP-Ping Mechanisms for EVPN and PBB-EVPN
Authors : Parag Jain
  Samer Salam

Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

Re: [bess] Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

Re: [bess] Query/comments on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

Re: [bess] Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-05

4 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information