Hi, Ali:
No. The reason that they are same is because “Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to a VLAN-based service interface (defined in Section 2.1 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8214.html#section-2.1> ); thus, this service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. “. That is to say, there is no requirements to define “VLAN-Aware Bundle Service Interface” for EVPN-VPWS. And, one further question is, the EVPN-VPWS solution is to cross connect the VPWS, via the EVPN backbone-----There is no need the MAC lookup at the disposition PE. But for our mentioned scenario, it is not the VPWS like communications----the hosts located behind the different CEs needs to communicate with each other, via the MAC lookup on the egress PEs. As discussed before, we need the LSI information to be encapsulated within the VxLAN header(or reuse the VLAN field of the original Ethernet frame) to identify the different BDs on the egress PE, to let the egress PE accomplish the right MAC lookup The control plane needs also to extend to transfer the LSI information. Or else, would you like to describe the control plane/forward plane procedures to accomplish the above aim, based on RFC 8214/RFC 9744? Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom 发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] 代表 Ali Sajassi (sajassi) 发送时间: 2025年3月23日 12:52 收件人: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> 抄送: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>; Jeffrey Zhang <zzhang=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>; BESS <bess@ietf.org>; draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org; Jorge Rabadan <jorge.raba...@nokia.com> 主题: [bess] Re: draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn Hi Aijun, If you read the last sentence of that paragraph carefully, it says that for EVPN-VPWS, control-plane and data-plane behavior are the same for vlan-based and vlan-aware bundle services. Thus no need to define the latter. There are other paragraphs that explain this further … “In terms of route advertisement and MPLS label lookup behavior, EVPN-VPWS resembles the VLAN-aware bundle mode of [RFC7432 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7432> ] such that when a PE advertises a per-EVI Ethernet A-D route, the VPWS service instance serves as a 32-bit normalized Ethernet Tag ID. The value of the MPLS label in this route represents both the EVI and the VPWS service instance, so that upon receiving an MPLS-encapsulated packet, the disposition PE can identify the egress AC from the MPLS label and subsequently perform any required tag translation. For the EVPL service, the Ethernet frames transported over an MPLS/IP network SHOULD remain tagged with the originating VLAN ID (VID), and any VID translation MUST be performed at the disposition PE. For the EPL service, the Ethernet frames are transported as is, and the tags are not altered. The MPLS label value in the Ethernet A-D route can be set to the Virtual Extensible LAN (VXLAN) Network Identifier (VNI) for VXLAN encapsulation as per [RFC7348 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7348> ], and this VNI will have a local scope per PE and may also be equal to the VPWS service instance identifier set in the Ethernet A-D route. When using VXLAN encapsulation, the BGP Encapsulation extended community is included in the Ethernet A-D route as described in [EVPN-OVERLAY <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8214.html#ref-EVPN-OVERLAY> ]. The VNI is like the MPLS label that will be set in the tunnel header used to tunnel Ethernet packets from all the service interface types defined in Section 2 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8214.html#section-2> . The EVPN-VPWS techniques defined in this document have no dependency on the tunneling technology.” Cheers, Ali From: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn <mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> > Date: Friday, March 21, 2025 at 9:12 PM To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com <mailto:saja...@cisco.com> > Cc: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn <mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> >, Jeffrey Zhang <zzhang=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:zzhang=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> >, BESS <bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org> >, draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org> <draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org> >, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.raba...@nokia.com <mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com> > Subject: Re: [bess] Re: draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn Hi, Ali: I reviewed roughly RFC8214, and found the following description(https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8214.html#section-2.3): Contrary to EVPN, in EVPN-VPWS this service interface maps to a VLAN-based service interface (defined in Section 2.1 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8214.html#section-2.1> ); thus, this service interface is not used in EVPN-VPWS. In other words, if one tries to define data-plane and control-plane behavior for this service interface, one would realize that it is the same as that of the VLAN-based service. So, there is no LSI aware bundle service now. Should we define it then? Aijun Wang China Telecom On Mar 21, 2025, at 10:30, 【外部账号】 Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com <mailto:saja...@cisco.com> > wrote: Aijun, Cool!, So in terms of encapsulation, you agree that we can use existing VxLAN encapsulation (with inner VID if needed). In terms of concept of backhauling traffic, RFC 8214 and RFC 9744 do cover the concept. Cheers, Ali From: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn <mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> > Date: Thursday, March 20, 2025 at 4:32 PM To: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com <mailto:saja...@cisco.com> > Cc: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn <mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> >, Jeffrey Zhang <zzhang=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:zzhang=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> >, BESS <bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org> >, draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org> <draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org> >, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.raba...@nokia.com <mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com> >, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com <mailto:saja...@cisco.com> > Subject: Re: [bess] Re: draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn Hi, Ali: I understand your proposal and think you understand also our aim after my presentation and offline discussions. As I responded to Jorge, it’s reasonable to reuse the VLAN field within the Ethernet itself to transfer the LSI information. By doing so, we can avoid the extension of the VxLAN itself and may be more easier to be implemented. We still think it’s necessary to define the LSI concept and configure/allocate/distribute it by the operator——the VLAN information that you mentioned on the CE, is located/configured under/behind the CE device, not the LSI(or VLAN for layer 2 aware bundle service) that is located between CE and PE. And, maybe there is no VLAN allocation under/behind CE. Aijun Wang China Telecom On Mar 21, 2025, at 05:51, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <saja...@cisco.com <mailto:saja...@cisco.com> > wrote: Hi Aijun, As I was explaining to you at the mic, what you are trying to do already exists and it works better than your proposal! Here are a few points to explain it in a further details: 1. Your draft doesn’t explain what issues or gaps currently exist in existing EVPN RFCs/drafts, and instead jumps into a proposal of needing LSI field in VxLAN header. 2. None of the EVPN experts are clear about what you are trying to do (including myself) and that’s why the questions from Jeffrey and Jorge. 3. As I mentioned at the mic, my guess is that you are trying to backhaul traffic from CEs to PEs (per figure-2) and then map the traffic to different EVPN service interfaces on PEs. For that the existing VxLAN constructs as explained in both RFC 7348 and RFC 8365 do the jobs and nothing else is needed. Furthermore, because CE does VxLAN encapsulation, it is not a CE but rather a PE and that’s one of the reasons for confusion when reading your draft. 4. VxLAN encapsulation allows for VLAN ID to be carried after VxLAN header and as explained in RFC 8365, that can be used to provide VLAN bundle (or VLAN aware bundle) service. So here why you don’t need any new field (LSI field) in VxLAN header for traffic backhauling over MAN and mapping them to EVPN service interfaces at the PEs (in figure-2). If VLAN based service mapping is needed at the PE, the VNI itself is sufficient! If VLAN bundle service mapping is needed, then you carry VLAN ID after the VxLAN header per RFC 8365 (inner VLAN ID) If VLAN-aware bundle service mapping is needed, then you can either use VNI or inner VLAN ID Why existing RFC7348 and RFC8365 are better than your proposal? That is because when you need to provide (b) above, you don’t need to do any VLAN ID provisioning on PEs because they will be transparent to them. Whereas in your proposal you need to configure LSIs on PEs! It doesn’t need a new field to do the job It doesn’t have any backward compatibility issues and interworking issues because it uses existing RFCs! Cheers, Ali From: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn <mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> > Date: Thursday, March 20, 2025 at 8:02 AM To: Jeffrey Zhang <zzhang=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:zzhang=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Cc: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn <mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> >, BESS <bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org> >, draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org> <draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org> >, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.raba...@nokia.com <mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com> > Subject: [bess] Re: draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-evpn 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 7:06 AM To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net <mailto:zzh...@juniper.net> > Cc: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn <mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> >; BESS <bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org> >; draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org <mailto:draft-wang-bess-l3-accessible-e...@ietf.org> ; Jorge Rabadan <jorge.raba...@nokia.com <mailto: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 <mailto:bess@ietf.org> To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org <mailto:bess-le...@ietf.org> _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org> To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org <mailto:bess-le...@ietf.org>
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
