Subject: [bess] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 20:03:11 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpls-seamless-integ/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 3.3 MAC Mobility

The handling of MAC mobility between the EVPN and VPLS PEs seems a bit, for a
lack of a better term, "not seamless" to me. While only using EVPN a MAC that
has moved will get propagated out without *initiating* any sort of BUM traffic
itself as described Section 15 of RFC7432. If I understand this document
correctly, if a MAC moves onto a segment with a VPLS PE, traffic towards it
will be blackholed until it initiates BUM traffic which is not the case when
the MAC moves between EVPN PEs. Did I get this right? If so, I think this
limitation needs to be highlighted a bit more prominently.

---

From: "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 09:20:43 +0000

Suresh,
Thanks for your review and your comments. Please refer to my replies below marked with "AS>".

On 1/9/19, 8:03 PM, "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    

    
  AS>  Section 3.3 describes two MAC move scenarios: move from EVPN PE to VPLS PE (1st para) and move from VPLS PE to EVPN PE (2nd para). In the first scenario, it says that if the moved MAC address doesn't initiate any BUM traffic (it only initiates known unicast traffic), then there can be black-holing for both EVPN and VPLS PEs. However, for the 2nd scenario, the black-holing can happen only for VPLS PEs. To clarify this point further, I added a sentence to each of the paragraph. 
1st para: Such black-holing happens for traffic destined to the moved C-MAC from both EVPN and VPLS PEs.
2nd para: Such black-holing happens for traffic destined to the moved C-MAC for only VPLS PEs but not for EVPN PEs.

Cheers,
Ali

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 05:17:13 +0000

Hi Ali,
  The suggested changes look good to me.

Thanks
Suresh

> On Jan 22, 2019, at 4:20 AM, Ali Sajassi (sajassi) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Suresh,