Hi ketan,
Yes, I agree. Currently, the bandwidth definitions are spread across three different communities, resulting in inconsistent behavior and various restrictions across different address families. Additionally, EVPN's link bandwidth is also restricted to the specific routes' ES link bandwidth. In fact, the application scenarios are similar to those in L3 VPN, L2 VPN, and public network egress scenarios. I hope that from the perspective of the global BGP protocol, these definitions can be made applicable across all address families, with controllable bandwidth units and transmission attributes. Here are the current three definitions: 1. using a new extended community [RFC4360] -the link bandwidth extended community. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-07.txt The extended community is optional non-transitive. 2. using a new type of IPv6 Address Specific Extended Community[RFC5701]- Link Bandwidth Extended Community https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-li-idr-link-bandwidth-ext-02.txt The subtypes defined here can be used for both optional transitive and non-transitive extended community attributes. 3.using a new type of EVPN Extended Community Sub-Types- EVPN Link Bandwidth Extended Community https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb-21.txt EVPN Link Bandwidth extended community is defined as transitive. A new EVPN Link Bandwidth extended community is defined to signal local ES link bandwidth to ingress PEs. Thanks, Changwang 发件人: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> 发送时间: 2024年7月25日 10:02 收件人: Reshma Das <dres...@juniper.net> 抄送: idr@ietf. org <i...@ietf.org>; draft-li-idr-link-bandwidth-...@ietf.org; BESS <bess@ietf.org>; satya.moha...@gmail.com; Jeff Haas <jh...@juniper.net>; Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> 主题: [Idr] Re: Do we need yet another link bandwidth community? Hi Reshma, Glad to see that we are in agreement to avoid another LBW extcomm. One of the points that I was trying to make is that we don't have a "single source of truth" if we look at this more holistically from BGP protocol perspective. We have two that have been implemented and deployed (even if for different address families). Let's work this out keeping the full and broader picture in mind. Thanks, Ketan On Wed, 24 Jul, 2024, 6:00 pm Reshma Das, <dres...@juniper.net<mailto:dres...@juniper.net>> wrote: Hi Ketan, I agree we don’t need yet another new draft to carry LBW community. As we know the base draft(draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth) is being revived to support both transitive and non-transitive use cases. This was presented in Mondays IDR session: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePPCAPOSQfM). It is worth updating the base draft as a single source of truth to accommodate all use cases. That provides the most interop. Since this is an effort initiated by IDR chairs, you are more than welcome to contribute to this effort as part the IDR WG. Thanks & Regards, Reshma Das Juniper Business Use Only From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com<mailto:ketant.i...@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 at 2:57 PM To: idr@ietf. org <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, draft-li-idr-link-bandwidth-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-li-idr-link-bandwidth-...@ietf.org> <draft-li-idr-link-bandwidth-...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-li-idr-link-bandwidth-...@ietf.org>> Cc: BESS <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>> Subject: [Idr] Do we need yet another link bandwidth community? [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hello All, Checking on the need for draft-li-idr-link-bandwidth-ex when we already have the EVPN Link Bandwidth Extended Community (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb). Is it because of the name containing "EVPN" or am I missing something? If it is just the name, I hope we still have the time to change it in draft-ietf-bess-evpn-unequal-lb? We already have 2 types (ignoring the transitive/non-transitive variants) and I hope we can avoid the need for a third one ... Thanks, Ketan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出 的个人或群组。禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、 或散发）本邮件中的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本 邮件！ This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New H3C, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
