Hi working group,
We have a new working group document.
Authors, can you please repost as
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags ?
Thank you,
-Thomas/Martin
2015-10-26, Ravi Singh:
Hi Thomas, Martin
Before adopting this draft, we would like hear people actually experiencing pain
related to not solving this issue and hear about implementations in actual
products.
In a network where some BGP-VPLS PEs have ability to insert CW and some do not,
not implementing section 3 has potential to cause the PW to not come up or
cause dropped packets (depending on implementation).
Section 3 of this draft is implemented in JunOS. See last paragraph on
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos14.1/topics/concept/vpls-bgp-control-word-overview.html
This was implemented in response to a specific-network-deployment-issue.
The key aspect of RFC4761 that necessitates the text of section 3 of this draft
is that the NLRI-advertising-PE is predicating on all other PEs in the same
VPLS, that they must or must-not insert the CW, for example, regardless of
whether they have the capability or not. [See
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4761#section-3.2.4]
This is in contrast to the proposed modification (for a different purpose)
where this PE is just advertising its ability
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-fat-pw-bgp-00#section-2)
The proposed text in section 3 provides a way around presumption of other-PEs'
abilities.
Section 4 provides an extension of the same intent for a deployment where the
transport LSP maybe a p2mp LSP.
Section 5 generalizes the previous sections as deployed to multi-homing
scenarios.
Both p2mp and multi-homing have some deployments and may run into the issue.
Regards
Ravi
-----Original Message-----
From: thomas.mo...@orange.com [mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com]
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 12:29 AM
To: bess@ietf.org; draft-singh-bess-bgp-vpls-control-fl...@tools.ietf.org; Ravi
Singh <ra...@juniper.net>; Kireeti Kompella <kire...@juniper.net>;
senad.palislamo...@alcatel-lucent.com
Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-singh-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags
Authors of draft-singh-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags, working group,
The support base for this proposal is not large.
Before adopting this draft, we would like hear people actually experiencing pain
related to not solving this issue and hear about implementations in actual
products.
Let's consider this poll for adoption open until we hear more.
Best,
Thomas/Martin
thomas.mo...@orange.com :
Hello working group,
This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
draft-singh-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags-01 [1] as a working group item.
Please send comments to the list and state if you support adoption or
not (in the later case, please also state the reasons).
This poll runs until **September 29th**.
*Coincidentally*, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that
applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for
more details).
==> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor please
respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
relevant IPR.
The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from
each author and contributor.
If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please
explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet
been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
Thank you,
Martin & Thomas
bess chairs
[1]
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-singh-bess-bgp-vpls-control-flags
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
