Hi, Here is the text updated, please let me know if this looks good.
"The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN encap as per [RFC7348], and this VNI will have a local scope per PE and may also be equal to the VPWS service instance identifier set in the Ethernet A-D route.” Will add a Normative reference to RFC7348. I can add as well the following: "When using VXLAN encap, the BGP Encapsulation extended community defined in [draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] and [RFC5512] is included in the Ethernet A-D route." And add a Normative reference to [RFC5512] and Informative to the tunnel-encaps. Thanks, Sami On 4/12/17, 1:19 PM, "John E Drake" <[email protected]> wrote: >Sami, > >I don't think we want to use a global VNI because if we do we will be limited >to one circuit per global VNI due to the fact that we demux traffic strictly >using the label value and not the MAC address. > >Yours Irrespectively, > >John > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:49 PM >> To: Sami Boutros <[email protected]>; Alia Atlas <[email protected]>; >> The IESG <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang >> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Alia Atlas' Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11: (with >> DISCUSS >> and COMMENT) >> >> Sami: >> >> Hi! >> >> Let’s go ahead and add the text to explain the operation with VXLAN – I think >> that the reference to rfc7348 should be Normative. >> >> I’ll take care of dealing with the downref when we’re ready with the new >> text. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Alvaro. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4/12/17, 2:14 PM, "Sami Boutros" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Alia, >> >> Please see comments inline. >> >> >> On 4/11/17, 4:43 PM, "Alia Atlas" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for >> >draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-11: Discuss >> > >> >When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> >email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> >introductory paragraph, however.) >> > >> > >> >Please refer to >> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_ >> >statement_discuss- >> 2Dcriteria.html&d=DwICaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JNXRgQ&r=I >> >VzcTRLQdpta08L0b_y2zDkqvwJhRKMCAbX-2K-LV98&m=78sPNErI- >> rljSFAaM5b76_QaDS >> >Tz2BD_8ny0Dxcf4sM&s=s8oat7vUDx6NHV0vOehUl_fLjsLHsTqmht3xIHoOr2I&e >> = >> >for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> > >> > >> >The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.o >> >rg_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dbess-2Devpn- >> 2Dvpws_&d=DwICaQ&c=uilaK90D4TOVoH58JN >> >XRgQ&r=IVzcTRLQdpta08L0b_y2zDkqvwJhRKMCAbX-2K-LV98&m=78sPNErI- >> rljSFAaM5 >> >b76_QaDSTz2BD_8ny0Dxcf4sM&s=MlJKXisQTr1aheS8hahty- >> iFDOCS_GhM37X2lMUAH54 >> >&e= >> > >> > >> > >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >DISCUSS: >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> >First, thank you for a clearly written document that contained enough >> >context to trigger my hazy memory of some of the technical details. >> > >> >My concern is around this paragraph in the Introduction: >> > >> >"The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the >> > VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN encap, and this VNI may >> >have >> > a global scope or local scope per PE and may also be equal to the >> > VPWS service instance identifier set in the Ethernet A-D route. >> >" >> > >> >First, I recognize that folks have implemented and deployed EVPN with >> >VXLAN. >> >That's fine. There is an ISE RFC 7348 that describes VXLAN. Depending >> >on what >> >you (authors, shepherd, AD, WG) decide to do about the rest of my >> >concern, it is likely that this should be normative references - which >> >would be a downref. >> >> I can add the 7348 as a normative reference. >> >> > >> >Second, the paragraph here isn't really adequate to describe how to >> >implement the >> >functionality. I don't see how: >> > a) The ingress PE decides which VNIs it can send based upon the >> >VNI=MPLS_label >> > from the egress. Is there an assumption that VXLAN allows >> >sending all VNIs across >> > the particular VPWS, whether port-based, VLAN-based, etc? >> >> We are signaling Ethernet A-D route per VPWS instance, and in there we will >> signal VNI instead of an MPLS label for VxLAN encap. >> >> > b) Is there an assumption that the egress PE-advertised MPLS label >> >also indicates the >> > VNI to be used? >> >> EVPN can work with different encapsulations a BGP Tunnel Encapsulation >> Attribute That specifies the tunnel type will be added to the Ethernet A-D >> route. >> >> >> >That seems like another mode, like the >> >VLAN-based service, except >> > it is perhaps VNI + VLAN-based service? >> >> The draft lists clearly the different service interface types, and there will >> be only one VNI per VPWS instance wether this is Vlan or port based. >> >> > >> >Please don't take this Discuss as a reason to remove the paragraph and >> >the implied functionality. >> >If it's implemented and deployed (and I think it is) - then what I really >> >want is to just have it >> >adequately written down so that others can interoperably implement. The >> >downref to VXLAN >> >should just be a matter of process nuisance (i.e. another IETF Last Call >> >and handling any concerns). >> > >> >> Should I add the 7348 as a normative reference? >> >> >> >> > >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >COMMENT: >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> >1) (Nit) Sec 3.1 "This draft" for an RFC should be "This document" or >> >"This specification" or... >> >> Will fix. >> > >> >2) Sec 3.1: " C If set to 1, a Control word [RFC4448] MUST be >> >present when sending EVPN packets to this PE." >> > Given discussions with IEEE about real MACs starting with 4 and 6 in >> >top nibble, adding a statement about it being BCP to include >> > the control word (unless using Entropy Label) would be a good idea. >> > >> Could you suggest some text? >> >> Should I submit -12 with the changes? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Sami >> > >> > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
