Thanks for the head’s up Sudhin.
I got as far as the TOC and associated document flow. I would suggest this
needs work before WGLC.
A few suggestions based on cursory reading.
1. Section 2, Test topologies (Nit: plural since you define 3...)
* Looks like you are defining only Single-Active? (Nit:SHPE3 appears
twice in its/box)
* You have only Figure1 and there are 3 topologies in there. Why not define
3 figures, one per topology ?
* The paging makes this section hard to read. Consider shrinking your
diagrams.
* In fact, these are all the SAME Topology. All you are changing is the
traffic pattern. Putting the details of traffic flow “per topology” and
especially hiding those details in a one-liner behind “Traffic Generator” is
not clear & concise.
* I would suggest:
* 1 Figure detailing the physical network diagram defining node names,
DUT, etc. ;
* A section defining “Test Topologies” overlayed onto that shared
network diagram:
* Nit: by “different VLANs” do you mean “Multiple” here or that CE
and SHPE3 have different VLANS from one another?)
* All-Active, traffic SHPE3 -> CE direction
* All-Active, traffic CE -> SHPE3 direction
* All-Active, traffic SHPE3 <-> CE bidirectional
* Single-Active, traffic SHPE3 -> CE direction
* Single-Active, traffic CE -> SHPE3 direction
* Single-Active, traffic SHPE3 <-> CE bidirectional
* That could fit nicely in a Table...
1. Repeating “How long it takes to learn” is redundant and makes the TOC
needlessly unreadable.
This is a benchmarking draft, isn’t timing and timing-verification implied?
If you MUST then just add a simple section/sentence at the top of document
specifying that and do away with the repetition and long titles
1. You have PBB-EVPN in titles that basically repeat the previous one
(presumably for EVPN?)
Maybe just have one section, and unnumbered subsections for EVPN and PBB-EVPN ?
or better yet: Section 3 EVPN, Section 4 PBB-EVPN and repeat same TCs concisely
per technology. Context switching as one reads through the document hinders
readability and flow.
3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-02#section-3>. EVPN
Test Cases
3.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-02#section-3.1>.
Local MAC learning
3.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-02#section-3.3>.
Remote MAC learning
3.3. Local MAC Flush, due to PE-CE link flap
3.3.1 MAC Re-learning rate
3.4. Remote MAC Flush, due to remote link failure
4<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-02#section-3>.
PBB-EVPN Test Cases
4.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-02#section-3.1>.
Local MAC learning
4.2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-02#section-3.3>.
Remote MAC learning
4.3. Local MAC Flush, due to PE-CE link flap
4.3.1 MAC Re-learning rate
4.4. Remote MAC Flush, due to remote link failure
Regards,
Luc André
Luc André Burdet | Cisco | [email protected] | Tel: +1 613 254 4814
From: BESS <[email protected]> on behalf of Sudhin Jacob
<[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 02:01
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [bess] REG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest/
Hi All,
Our draft is going to be WGLC in BMWG workgroup. Could you please let us know
any comments.
Regards,
Sudhin
Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
