Re: [bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Hi Eduard, I am not saying that the mass-withdraw for single-homed ES don't have any benifits. What I have noticed is that when we extend a mass-withdraw feature for single-homed ES, the route resolution for zero ESI RT-2 can not be simply updated, if those updates would exclude current

Re: [bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Eduard, Lots of thanks for a prompt response. I doubt "mass withdrawal" in the single-homed scenarios has real added value. However, even if it has, IMHO advertisement and withdrawal of per-ES EVPN Type 1 routes with zero ESI vale in their NLRI in any case will not help you to enjoy these

Re: [bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Hi Yubao, I just haven't noted that in RFC7432 a RT-1 per ES/EVI (with ESI=0) route should be advertised for each single-homed ES. Well, it is my reading of 5. Ethernet Segment: - ESI 0 denotes a single-homed site. Whether such

Re: [bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Hi Alexander, For sure, multi-homed scenario is the primary beneficiary from "mass-withdraw". Could I argue a little bit that it is valuable for "single-homed" too? 1. If MAC learning is in the data plane, then probably not much additional value from faster signaling. But it is: remote PE would

Re: [bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Eduard hi! I do not see any contradiction in your scenario. Mass withdrawal provides for (relatively) fast restoration of traffic that originally has been sent to a multi-homed customer site via one of the links comprising a multi-homed Ethernet Segment when this link fails. >From my POV

Re: [bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Hi Eduard, I just haven't noted that in RFC7432 a RT-1 per ES/EVI (with ESI=0) route should be advertised for each single-homed ES. RFC7432 just says that all RT-2 routes of a single-homed ES should be advertised with ESI=0, and then it MUST be installed into the dataplane based on

Re: [bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Hi Yubao For sure should be consistency: If ESI=0 in RT-1 then all subsequent RT-2 should have ESI=0 too. Just it is a discovery for me that "mass-withdraw" is not possible for single-homed ES. Eduard From: wang.yub...@zte.com.cn [mailto:wang.yub...@zte.com.cn] Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021

Re: [bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Hi Eduard, It is just a configuration-decision whether to configure a single-homed ES with a non-zero ESI, thus it is not RFC violation from the viewpoint of the implementation. But if the RT-2 routes whose ESI is zero will not be installed unless there is an Ethernet A-D per ES route

Re: [bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Hi Yubao, Thanks for the comment. I think more and have not understood too how "mass-withdraw" is possible with single-homed sites. Section 5 instructs us to use ESI=0 for single-homed sites. EVI could have many Ethernet Segments connected on 1 PE, all would be with ESI=0 for single-homed. Then

Re: [bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Hi Eduard, I don't think an Ethernet A-D per ES route with a zero ESI is better to use, Because each single-homed CE is an individual ES, that's why MAC mobility happens between two zero ESIs (for different single-homed ethernet segments) but not happens between the same ESI (local

Re: [bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Hi Yuya, Thanks. Your explanation looks reasonable because section 8.2: " If no other PE had advertised an Ethernet A-D route for the same segment, then the PE that received the withdrawal simply invalidates the MAC entries for that segment." Does not say "MUST" or "SHOULD". But the word "may"

Re: [bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Hi Eduard, As my understanding, these statements are not contradictory because mass withdrawal is an optional functionality. Section 8.3 says when PEs are operating All-Active redundancy mode, Ethernet A-D per Ethernet Segment Route must be advertised for split horizon. This would be reason

[bess] Contradiction for the RFC 7432 definition of the fast convergence (withdrawal) for single-homed CEs

Hi EVPN guru, It looks like RFC 7432 section 8.2.1 (Constructing Ethernet A-D per Ethernet Segment Route) has an error: "The Ethernet A-D route is not needed when the Segment Identifier is set to 0 (e.g., single-homed scenarios)." Because without "per ES route" it would not be possible to