Optimized Ingress Replication solution for EVPN
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-07-13 |
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-07-13 |
07 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-07.txt |
2020-07-13 |
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-07-13 |
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>, Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Mukul Katiyar <mukul@versa-networks.com>, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com> |
2020-07-13 |
07 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-05 |
06 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2018-12-20 |
06 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2018-10-22 |
06 | Matthew Bocci | draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-06 Document Shepherd Write-Up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-06 Document Shepherd Write-Up (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Standard track. This is appropriate as the draft describes a set of protocol extensions, including new code points and ways to use existing TLVs, to optimize ingress replication for BUM traffic in EVPN. The intended status is properly indicated. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Network Virtualization Overlay (NVO) networks using EVPN as control plane may use Ingress Replication (IR) or PIM (Protocol Independent Multicast) based trees to convey the overlay BUM traffic. PIM provides an efficient solution to avoid sending multiple copies of the same packet over the same physical link, however it may not always be deployed in the NVO core network. IR avoids the dependency on PIM in the NVO network core. While IR provides a simple multicast transport, some NVO networks with demanding multicast applications require a more efficient solution without PIM in the core. This document describes a solution to optimize the efficiency of IR in NVO networks. Working Group Summary The document was developed to address the desire to provide efficient replication. It is important because it avoids the need to deploy PIM in the core of the network only for this application, which is particularly a consideration where EVPN is deployed to implement Network Virtualization Overlays in data centers. It makes use of a new BGP PMSI Tunnel Type to do this. There are no IPR declarations on the draft . Document Quality I have no concerns about the quality of the document. I believe it represents WG consensus, and it has been widely reviewed and discussed on the list over a number of years. The document does not specify any MIB changes or additions which would need review. Personnel The document shepherd is Matthew Bocci (matthew.bocci@nokia.com). The responsible Area Director is Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@nokia.com). (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd reviewed v04 of the document. I had no significant technical comments, but I did make some editorial comments that were resolved in version 05 and 06. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns. The document has received adequate review. The document has been developed within the WG and reviewed over a period of a number of IETFs. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No further review required. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No specific concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Each author listed in the Authors Addresses section has personally indicated that they are not aware of any IPR that has not already been declared in accordance with BCP 78 and 79. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. There are no IPR declarations on the draft. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? I am comfortable that the document represents WG consensus and has been reviewed by a reasonable number of active WG participants. It received a number of comments and significant discussion in WG last call that were addressed by the authors. There were no objections during last call, and comments were constructive and supportive of moving the draft forward. Prior to the WG last call, a call for interest was conducted which also demonstrated consensus in the value of progressing the draft. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) None indicated. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. ID-Nits passes. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no relevant formal review criteria. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. All references are explicitly identified as informative or normative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document requests new code points from the PMSI Tunnel Types registry and the PMSI Attributes registry. The were already allocated by IANA as early allocations and appear correctly in the published registries. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. There are no IANA actions. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. There are no sections containing formal language that needs reviewing. |
2018-10-22 |
06 | Matthew Bocci | Responsible AD changed to Martin Vigoureux |
2018-10-22 |
06 | Matthew Bocci | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2018-10-22 |
06 | Matthew Bocci | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-10-22 |
06 | Matthew Bocci | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-10-22 |
06 | Matthew Bocci | Changed document writeup |
2018-10-19 |
06 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-06.txt |
2018-10-19 |
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-19 |
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>, Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, Mukul Katiyar <mukul@versa-networks.com> |
2018-10-19 |
06 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-18 |
05 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-05.txt |
2018-10-18 |
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-18 |
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, Wen Lin <wlin@juniper.net>, Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, Mukul Katiyar <mukul@versa-networks.com> |
2018-10-18 |
05 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-30 |
04 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-04.txt |
2018-09-30 |
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-30 |
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, Aldrin Isaac <aisaac@juniper.net>, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, bess-chairs@ietf.org, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, Mukul … Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, Aldrin Isaac <aisaac@juniper.net>, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, bess-chairs@ietf.org, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, Mukul Katiyar <mukul@versa-networks.com> |
2018-09-30 |
04 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-27 |
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-03-13 |
03 | Matthew Bocci | Notification list changed to Matthew Bocci <matthew.bocci@nokia.com> |
2018-03-13 |
03 | Matthew Bocci | Document shepherd changed to Matthew Bocci |
2018-02-23 |
03 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-03.txt |
2018-02-23 |
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-02-23 |
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, bess-chairs@ietf.org, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, Aldrin Isaac <aisaac@juniper.net>, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com> |
2018-02-23 |
03 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2017-12-07 |
02 | Martin Vigoureux | Notification list changed to none from Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> |
2017-12-07 |
02 | Martin Vigoureux | Notification list changed to Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> |
2017-12-07 |
02 | Martin Vigoureux | Document shepherd changed to Martin Vigoureux |
2017-08-16 |
02 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-02.txt |
2017-08-16 |
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-08-16 |
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Senthil Sathappan <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, Jorge Rabadan <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, Wim Henderickx <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, Ali Sajassi <sajassi@cisco.com>, Aldrin Isaac <aisaac@juniper.net> |
2017-08-16 |
02 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2017-08-16 |
01 | Thomas Morin | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2017-07-10 |
01 | Thomas Morin | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2017-06-21 |
01 | Martin Vigoureux | Notification list changed to none from Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange.com> |
2017-06-21 |
01 | Martin Vigoureux | Notification list changed to Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange.com> |
2017-06-21 |
01 | Martin Vigoureux | Document shepherd changed to Thomas Morin |
2017-06-20 |
01 | Martin Vigoureux | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-03-16 |
01 | Martin Vigoureux | Added -01 to session: IETF-98: bess Mon-0900 |
2017-02-15 |
01 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-01.txt |
2017-02-15 |
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-15 |
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jorge Rabadan" <jorge.rabadan@nokia.com>, "Senthil Sathappan" <senthil.sathappan@nokia.com>, "Ali Sajassi" <sajassi@cisco.com>, "Wim Henderickx" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>, "Aldrin Isaac" <aisaac@juniper.net> |
2017-02-15 |
01 | Jorge Rabadan | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-01 |
00 | (System) | Document has expired |
2016-07-20 |
00 | Thomas Morin | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Internet Standard |
2016-02-29 |
00 | Thomas Morin | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-02-29 |
00 | Thomas Morin | Intended Status changed to Internet Standard from None |
2016-02-29 |
00 | Thomas Morin | This document now replaces draft-rabadan-bess-evpn-optimized-ir instead of None |
2016-02-29 |
00 | Jorge Rabadan | New version available: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-optimized-ir-00.txt |