Early Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-09-06
Requested 2016-08-24
Authors Ali Sajassi, John Drake, Nabil Bitar, Ravi Shekhar, Jim Uttaro, Wim Henderickx
Draft last updated 2016-09-06
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Keyur Patel (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by IJsbrand Wijnands (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -10 by Lou Berger (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Fred Baker (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Keyur Patel
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bess-evpn-overlay-04-rtgdir-early-patel-2016-09-06
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 12)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2016-09-06



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate QA reviewer for 


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.


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:


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 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,