Hi Aijun, I didn’t have time to ask you this question at the BESS meeting yesterday:
My interpretation of the problem statement is that you need some extra bits in the vxlan header to identify the LSI, hence the BD in “LSI” aware bundle mode. But could you not use some bits of the VNI itself and therefore have a solution that works without any extensions? The VNI is a 24-bit value. You could e.g., use 20bits (or X) for the common ID and 4bits (or Y) for the “LSI”. Then on the PE, if you have “LSI” aware bundle, you can use those 4 to differentiate each BD. The EVPN routes would be advertised with a different “Y” value for each BD. In other words, if you need to provide such “structure” for the VXLAN identifier that yields the BD on the ingress lookup, why can't you do it with the existing VNI space? The VNI space gives you 16M values, is that not enough? Thanks. Jorge From: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> Date: Thursday, March 20, 2025 at 8:01 AM To: Jeffrey Zhang <zzhang=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>, BESS <bess@ietf.org>, draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org <draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org>, Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> Subject: Re: [bess] Re: draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi, Jeffery: Yes, they are related to the MAC lookup, which can assure the traffic isolation in LSI based/LSI bundle/LSI aware bundle environment. The related forwarding plane extension and control plane extension are only necessary for LSI aware bundle environment——in this situation, the destination MAC of incoming traffic will be looked up within the specified LSI BD domain only. If there is no LSI value(which is different from the VNI value of backbone EVPN) associated with the income traffic, the above aim cannot be accomplished. Aijun Wang China Telecom On Mar 20, 2025, at 19:39, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: Hi Aijun, My quote of RFC7432 is in this context: “If your intention is to avoid the MAC lookup on the egress PE (which the draft does not talk about)” … Is that your intention? If not, then the quote should simply be ignored. If yes, your draft should be clear about that (it is not currently); and I will come back with more comments. Jeffrey Juniper Business Use Only From: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 7:06 AM To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net> Cc: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; BESS <bess@ietf.org>; draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org; Jorge Rabadan <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> Subject: Re: [bess] draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn [External Email. Be cautious of content] Hi, Jeffery: Thanks for your analysis. Let’s try again to converge based on our current mutual understandings. First, the conclusion, the solution proposed in this document is necessary. Here is the reasoning: What you quoted at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7432.html#section-9.2.1<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7432.html*section-9.2.1__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EVS8RAEKl0m4mLCuOqpNzbkMSq2HFrRlHCebswm9hv4cNcjVIUouszlapK9Cr_XiqJ9ekoWkbuol07Bc7idetStS$> is just the traditional layer 2 access EVPN services or one of our layer 3 accessible EVPN service(“LSI based EVPN services”), the protocol extensions proposed in draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn is mainly for “LSI Aware Bundle EVPN services”, which is not covered by the current RFC7432, or any other existing EVPN related services. For example: A PE may advertise the same single EVPN label for all MAC addresses in a given MAC-VRF. This label assignment is referred to as a per MAC-VRF label assignment. —-The above description corresponds to “Layer 2 VLAN Bundled EVPN Service” Alternatively, a PE may advertise a unique EVPN label per <MAC-VRF, Ethernet tag> combination. This label assignment is referred to as a per <MAC-VRF, Ethernet tag> label assignment. —-The above description corresponds to “Layer 2 VLAN Based EVPN Service” As a third option, a PE may advertise a unique EVPN label per <ESI, Ethernet tag> combination. This label assignment is referred to as a per <ESI, Ethernet tag> label assignment. —-The above description corresponds to “LSI Based EVPN Service”. As a fourth option, a PE may advertise a unique EVPN label per MAC address. This label assignment is referred to as a per MAC label assignment. —-The above description is just for some very specific situations, and is not in the scope of current “Layer 2 Access EVPN Service” or the corresponding newly proposed “Layer 3 accessible EVPN service” All of these label assignment methods have their trade-offs. The choice of a particular label assignment methodology is purely local to the PE that originates the route Aijun Wang China Telecom Aijun Wang China Telecom On Mar 17, 2025, at 05:12, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:zzhang=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hi Aijun, Now that the -08 revision has been published, let me bring this discussion to the WG. The email thread has some details that help clarify the intended use case and why the proposed solution is not needed or not good. The draft does not clearly state it, but based on our discussions below, the PE-CE connection is a PW that terminates into the EVPN PE. There are two previous points that I want to re-emphasize here. I'll then explain why your proposed solution is not needed in my view. - There are already deployed solutions of PWs terminating into VPN service PEs, including EVPN, w/o any protocol extensions - On the EVPN side, there is no difference between "a PW terminates into a PW-PE, which then connects to EVPN PE via a physical L2 connection" and "a PW terminates into the EVPN PE directly" Your solution requires the ingress EVPN PEs to put on the PW information that is used on the egress side. That is just unnecessary and not appropriate. In the true L2 connection case, the MAC lookup on the egress PE leads to local forwarding information, including the outgoing AC and perhaps VID translation information. In the PW terminating into EVPN PE case, the same lookup leads to local forwarding information, including the PW information, which is *local* and should not be advertised other EVPN PEs for them to put into the VXLAN header. If your intention is to avoid the MAC lookup on the egress PE (which the draft does not talk about), it is an orthogonal issue (nothing to do with PW terminating into EVPN PE) that is already solved. Per RFC7432: A PE may advertise the same single EVPN label for all MAC addresses in a given MAC-VRF. This label assignment is referred to as a per MAC-VRF label assignment. Alternatively, a PE may advertise a unique EVPN label per <MAC-VRF, Ethernet tag> combination. This label assignment is referred to as a per <MAC-VRF, Ethernet tag> label assignment. As a third option, a PE may advertise a unique EVPN label per <ESI, Ethernet tag> combination. This label assignment is referred to as a per <ESI, Ethernet tag> label assignment. As a fourth option, a PE may advertise a unique EVPN label per MAC address. This label assignment is referred to as _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
