Hi all, A gentle reminder... Regards, Sasha
From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2023 2:22 PM To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com>; wim.henderi...@nokia.com; Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <sajassi=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>; w...@juniper.net; ssa...@cisco.com; stho...@cisco.com Subject: FW: A minor contradiction between RFC 9135 and RFC 9136? Hi all, The email expansions for the authors of RFC 9135 and RFC 9136 do not work anymore. Therefore, I forward my email to you individually. Regards, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2023 2:08 PM To: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisem...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisem...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forward...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-inter-subnet-forward...@ietf.org> Cc: bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> Subject: A minor contradiction between RFC 9135 and RFC 9136? Importance: High Hi all, I see what looks to me as a contradiction between Section 9.1.1 of RFC 9315<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9135#section-9.1.1> and Section 4.4.1 of RFC 9136<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9136#section-4.4.1>: 1. The former: a. Defines a Symmetric IRB as an interface connecting an IP-VRF to an EVPN Broadcast Domain (a MAC-VRF or a specific BBD within a MAC-VRF that implements VLAN-Aware service interface) b. Describes an IP Prefix (EVPN Type 5, a.k.a. RT-5) route advertised for the subnet of a Symmetric EVPN IRB and states that RD in the NLRI of this route is the RD of IP-VRF that contains that the IRB in question 2. The latter describes the Interface-less IP-VRF to IP-VRF model: a. To the best of my understanding, this model deals with just Symmetric IRBs b. The RFC states that the NVE/DGW will, for each of its prefixes, advertise an RT-5 with RD in its NLRI as defined in RFC 7432<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7432.html>. Since RFC 7432 does not refer to IP-VRFs at all, this strongly suggests to me that it means RD of a MAC-VRF . The following diagram shows why this difference may be meaningful: [cid:image001.png@01DA2B65.E342FB80] In this diagram PE-1, PE-2 and PE-3 can only exchange L2VPN/EVPN routes but not VPN-IP routes. Suppose that IP-VRF in PE-1 and PE-2 are configured with a static route to SN-. In this case: - PE-1 and PE-2 can advertise RT-5 for SN-1 using either RDs of IP-VRFs or RDs of MAC-VRF - If RT-5 uses RDs of containing IP-VRF, bi-directional connectivity between devices in SN-1 and SN-2 can be established - If RT-5 uses RDs of MAC-VRF in its NLRI, PE-3 cannot advertise RT-5 for SN-2 because there is no MAC-VRF in this PE. What, if anything, do I miss? Your timely feedback would be highly appreciated. Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha Disclaimer This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
