IETF Logo Mail Archive

[RTG-DIR] [bess] RTG Dir QA review: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04.txt

Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> Mon, 05 September 2016 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <keyur@arrcus.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2069112B0B4; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:34:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=netorgft1331857.onmicrosoft.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id giEm2y-U9Pbm; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam03on0082.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.42.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 729E012B0C2; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=NETORGFT1331857.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-arrcus-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=e41B5PqDl/k693CVJ3n1XLvplVq33gN4wmeCRZEPLN0=; b=Oub4ODs9Owq/eIa9knW+eHOa1LRkFa7uTKOQqpAclEb+XJjWYelmXFV0o/CFWV/qKrat3HTOJGIu3QIuPrNyvcwK94O6FG5pPOJFf1AQz7uMAsgyQg1wnCtn/ByhmPMliiMtmxJehujC2zRNxVzSJnrcOUsyv+iPt/cTXIiMGqo=
Received: from BY2PR18MB0262.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (10.163.72.152) by BY2PR18MB0264.namprd18.prod.outlook.com (10.163.72.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P384) id 15.1.609.9; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 22:34:45 +0000
Received: from BY2PR18MB0262.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.72.152]) by BY2PR18MB0262.namprd18.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.72.152]) with mapi id 15.01.0599.016; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 22:34:44 +0000
From: Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>
To: "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] RTG Dir QA review: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSB8Gs2FQD5hIOJ0qWQD+BeJeuuA==
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 22:34:43 +0000
Message-ID: <SN1PR18MB0270C4F8E72682398E1726FDC1E60@SN1PR18MB0270.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=keyur@arrcus.com;
x-originating-ip: [73.241.11.75]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 593998c7-8846-453b-bb5f-08d3d5dcd5fb
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR18MB0264; 6:phJWoX+VOhi338cZ6Xj3p0gRcjyKmC4Q3LctJaF0BiOufmFS2G5QZdlqRvA186/SmySBOp6m2ElYSD8guiTaqbtnTLXCnM5OYybMGstqLZnobzswxNIMbWl4NdNvHjDwPV8z4LtXKY9iLUKh4d+revVp4nwbsfVhwbQBLmZ314xYp7Zb3kzNo0gTTCve8r+CYx3cLvY5+1+NI5DbXI4b12E/D1eXz4RBmOZqzhOOXvx1jzT8ifvWucfaLiHY4ZB74Cr87X3MBeM+tCnXE3DMaB+qMNvYfuQM63uak1k9+ojSZFG2xUtJN7whlY92e3Cc; 5:MuZserjKL8BCCm75pMh6gyO+YimhiS5zDwWadXfqDHbo0mDAeUREaG2KCKe9OT8FPe2/pz0c5jx6sim/PDHkWJvrUl6XnJGXZYBnAMtufKN/1PagiASG/thcSWvOxXZoIKsbKPic4cBrgKc0+LzP8Q==; 24:dwt7DN+ahxvPhM+jE0vEuKpzzgg4azxy1aAaBEszqNL1HO1XY062HGIAexfMo6HjEsMR88VuyVqlXPGEbfJBkO908O2FJ/eSd3nM9LRcWyc=; 7:LcsUrcglqKzHXD/4aKy6Y54bWR4QGAkmlu8GISOqNdBWhftbwYEnmFxtTlbqGeCGcST52B5no2tLzaag/wnQEZSe+2h7tKWe9pv7K/JjsarHRyw19ujmD47QOWvPJ7t02hDyMOdViTyoTO40+KAAmUhagKKz4Cz5b15EZP2g+63EgU8zxDqausWzvcE6PDqFshz10DF+EB1NklYiyGAZVSOoME6Iv8rYYO62rxiNpNopjIF5wzFPanUh4r5AQo7W
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR18MB0264;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR18MB026485CD1A26A4F99CADD974C1E60@BY2PR18MB0264.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(192374486261705);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(102415321)(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6043046)(6042046); SRVR:BY2PR18MB0264; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR18MB0264;
x-forefront-prvs: 005671E15D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(189002)(199003)(57704003)(66066001)(2906002)(19627595001)(87936001)(7736002)(7846002)(19627405001)(2900100001)(54356999)(50986999)(17760045003)(3280700002)(16236675004)(3660700001)(122556002)(18206015028)(99936001)(2201001)(86362001)(68736007)(76576001)(101416001)(19625215002)(229853001)(33656002)(106356001)(10400500002)(105586002)(106116001)(230783001)(81156014)(81166006)(8936002)(74316002)(189998001)(107886002)(2501003)(8676002)(99286002)(450100001)(77096005)(102836003)(6116002)(586003)(3846002)(97736004)(9686002)(5001770100001)(5002640100001)(5660300001)(19580395003)(92566002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR18MB0264; H:BY2PR18MB0262.namprd18.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: arrcus.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_SN1PR18MB0270C4F8E72682398E1726FDC1E60SN1PR18MB0270namp_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: arrcus.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Sep 2016 22:34:43.8318 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 697b3529-5c2b-40cf-a019-193eb78f6820
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR18MB0264
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/LoF8NZ3a-ZWl1KaJdULVqajFP1Q>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] [bess] RTG Dir QA review: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 22:34:50 -0000

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04.txt.


The Routing Directorate QA reviews are intended to be a support to improve the quality of RTG Area documents as they pass through the IETF process. This is the QA review at the time of the WG document adoption poll.


Summary:


This document describes how Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [RFC7432] can be used as a Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) solution and explores the various tunnel encapsulation options over IP and their impact on the EVPN control-plane and procedures. In particular, the following encapsulation options are analyzed: VXLAN, NVGRE, and MPLS over GRE.



The document is well written, easy to read and follow. Some minor comments are listed below:


Comments:


1) Introduction section suggests xmpp based approach as an alternative to the BGP as a control plane. It is unclear how the draft sections 8-10 and the security section 12 relate to the alternative solution. My suggestion would be to remove the reference if possible considering the draft is specific to BGP as a control plane.


2) Section 5.1.2.1 defines Autoderivation RT which suggests the use of 2 byte AS number. Do we need to consider 4 byte AS number as well? [😊]


3) Section 6: Minor Nit. Consider replacing "statically" with "locally".


4) Section 7.1: Talks about using RD value of 0. RD as a type:value field. Type 0 RD requires the usage of 2 byte AS number (private values are strongly discouraged) which needs to be 0 for RD value to be 0. AS 0 according to IANA is reserved. Seems to be like usage of AS 0 is prohibited. Would a reserve RD value be more appropriate?


5) section 8.3.1 describes the draft constrain wrt mpls over gre versus vxlan/nvgre. Perhaps it would be great to highlight the constrain upfront in the introduction section?


6) Do you need to add text to describe ARP/ND suppression in presence of default route?


Best Regards,

Keyur

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email