Thanks, Jorge. It is clear that the Ethernet Tag needs to be different from 0 for the purpose of DF election..
One of the options a provider has for supporting untagged frames in EVPN VPLS multihoming in VID translation...a rule to match untagged frames and impose a VID at the ingress and another rule to match that VID and dispose it at the egress. Are there any other options that can interop well? Regards, Muthu On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:11 AM Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) < jorge.raba...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I think you should check out > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-df-election-framework-09 > > > > This draft updates RFC7432 in certain aspects of the DF Election, and it > is already at the RFC editor. > > > > Check out the use of Ethernet Tag in the document. > > > > o Ethernet Tag - used to represent a Broadcast Domain that is > > configured on a given ES for the purpose of DF election. Note that > > any of the following may be used to represent a Broadcast Domain: > > VIDs (including Q-in-Q tags), configured IDs, VNI (VXLAN Network > > Identifiers), normalized VID, I-SIDs (Service Instance > > Identifiers), etc., as long as the representation of the broadcast > > domains is configured consistently across the multi-homed PEs > > attached to that ES. The Ethernet Tag value MUST be different from > > zero. > > > > Thanks. > > Jorge > > > > *From: *BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Jaikumar Somasundaram < > jaikumar.somasunda...@ericsson.com> > *Date: *Friday, April 5, 2019 at 6:15 AM > *To: *"bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org> > *Cc: *P Muthu Arul Mozhi <p.muthu.arul.mo...@ericsson.com> > *Subject: *[bess] DF election rule in EVPN MH, for untagged interface - > reg > > > > Hi All, > > > > RFC7432, section 8.5, talks about DF election algorithm (service carving > algorithm) > > only for <ES, VLAN> for VLAN-based service or <ES, VLAN bundle> for > VLAN-(aware) > > bundle service. > > > > But there wont be any vlan id for untagged interface and so I wonder > > how the service carving algorithm can be applied to elect the DF. > > Also, should I use the lower VLAN ID even in the case of VLAN-bundle > > service, for electing the DF? > > > > Could some one help me to understand this please? > > > > ==========<snip from RFC 7432, section 8.5>=============== > 8.5 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7432#section-8.5>. Designated > Forwarder Election > > … > > The default procedure for DF election at the granularity of <ES, > > VLAN> for VLAN-based service or <ES, VLAN bundle> for VLAN-(aware) > > bundle service is referred to as "service carving". > > … > > Assuming a redundancy group of N PE nodes, for VLAN-based service, > > the PE with ordinal i is the DF for an <ES, VLAN V> when (V mod N) > > = i. In the case of VLAN-(aware) bundle service, then the > > numerically lowest VLAN value in that bundle on that ES MUST be > > used in the modulo function. > > … > > =========<snip end>====================================== > > > > Thanks & Regards > > Jaikumar S > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > BESS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
