Re: [bess] Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b
Hi Jorge, I think the description in draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b is OK. But I don't know why the RD of AD per ES route is limited to type 1 RD. That's why I talk about this together with rfc7432bis. If the scenario from draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b has shown out that it will be useful for the RD-type of AD per ES route being consistence with MAC-VRF RD, I think maybe it is not necessary for rfc7432bis to keep these restraints unchanged. I notice that you are also a co-author of rfc7432bis, how do you think from the viewpoint of rfc7432bis? Thanks, Yubao 原始邮件 发件人：JorgeRabadan(Nokia) 收件人：王玉保10045807;draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-op...@ietf.org;rfc7432...@ietf.org; 抄送人：bess@ietf.org; 日 期 ：2023年05月13日 00:23 主 题 ：Re: Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b Hi Yubao, Thanks for reviewing the document. I don’t see any conflicting information: On one hand the use of type 1 RD for MAC-VRF is RECOMMENDED in rfc7432bis, which means that normally people will have a type 1 RD in MAC-VRFs. If you don’t follow that strong recommendation for the MAC-VRF RD, you can’t use the documented solutions in 3.1.2 or 3.1.3 On the other hand draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b is documenting some existing solutions, but not specifying or imposing any in particular. So I don’t think there is conflicting information. But if you still think we should clarify that in draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b we’ll be happy to do it. Thanks. Jorge From: wang.yub...@zte.com.cn Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:54 AM To: draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-op...@ietf.org , Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , rfc7432...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi Authors, It seems that draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b has conflicting discription with rfc7432 about the RD-type of AD per ES routes: Section 3.1.3 of draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b-00: "If that is the case, now the A-D per ES routes can use the route distinguisher assigned to the EVPN Instance (or VRF), which is the same one used by the routes type 2 or 5 for the EVI." Section 8.2.1 of rfc7432bis: "The Route Distinguisher MUST be a Type 1 RD [RFC4364]. The value field comprises an IP address of the PE (typically, the loopback address) followed by a number unique to the PE." The RD of EVI is not always a Type 1 RD but rfc7432 says that the RD of AD per ES route MUST be a Type1 RD. If it is not necessary to prevent other RD-types from being used in AD per ES routes, is it better for rfc7432bis to change the "MUST" to "MAY" ? I think such change is also compatible. Thanks, Yubao___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Re: [bess] Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b
Hi Yubao, Thanks for reviewing the document. I don’t see any conflicting information: * On one hand the use of type 1 RD for MAC-VRF is RECOMMENDED in rfc7432bis, which means that normally people will have a type 1 RD in MAC-VRFs. If you don’t follow that strong recommendation for the MAC-VRF RD, you can’t use the documented solutions in 3.1.2 or 3.1.3 * On the other hand draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b is documenting some existing solutions, but not specifying or imposing any in particular.. So I don’t think there is conflicting information. But if you still think we should clarify that in draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b we’ll be happy to do it. Thanks. Jorge From: wang.yub...@zte.com.cn Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:54 AM To: draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-op...@ietf.org , Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , rfc7432...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi Authors, It seems that draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b has conflicting discription with rfc7432 about the RD-type of AD per ES routes: Section 3.1.3 of draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b-00: "If that is the case, now the A-D per ES routes can use the route distinguisher assigned to the EVPN Instance (or VRF), which is the same one used by the routes type 2 or 5 for the EVI." Section 8.2.1 of rfc7432bis: "The Route Distinguisher MUST be a Type 1 RD [RFC4364]. The value field comprises an IP address of the PE (typically, the loopback address) followed by a number unique to the PE." The RD of EVI is not always a Type 1 RD but rfc7432 says that the RD of AD per ES route MUST be a Type1 RD. If it is not necessary to prevent other RD-types from being used in AD per ES routes, is it better for rfc7432bis to change the "MUST" to "MAY" ? I think such change is also compatible. Thanks, Yubao ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] Discussion on rfc7432bis and draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b
Hi Authors, It seems that draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b has conflicting discription with rfc7432 about the RD-type of AD per ES routes: Section 3.1.3 of draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-inter-domain-opt-b-00: "If that is the case, now the A-D per ES routes can use the route distinguisher assigned to the EVPN Instance (or VRF), which is the same one used by the routes type 2 or 5 for the EVI." Section 8.2.1 of rfc7432bis: "The Route Distinguisher MUST be a Type 1 RD [RFC4364]. The value field comprises an IP address of the PE (typically, the loopbackaddress) followed by a number unique to the PE." The RD of EVI is not always a Type 1 RD but rfc7432 says that the RD of AD per ES route MUST be a Type1 RD. If it is not necessary to prevent other RD-types from being used in AD per ES routes, is it better for rfc7432bis to change the "MUST" to "MAY" ? I think such change is also compatible. Thanks, Yubao___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
