Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-09
review-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-09-opsdir-lc-wu-2024-09-25-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 09) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2024-10-04 | |
Requested | 2024-09-20 | |
Authors | Ali Sajassi , Patrice Brissette , Jim Uttaro , John Drake , Sami Boutros , Jorge Rabadan | |
I-D last updated | 2024-09-25 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -07
by Gyan Mishra
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Qin Wu Genart Last Call review of -09 by Joel M. Halpern |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Qin Wu |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/5vonRHgwsodTh5UXQiB0w8oKsc0 | |
Reviewed revision | 09 | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2024-09-25 |
review-ietf-bess-evpn-vpws-fxc-09-opsdir-lc-wu-2024-09-25-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This document describes a new EVPN VPWS service type specifically for multiplexing multiple attachment circuits across different Ethernet Segments and physical interfaces into a single EVPN VPWS service tunnel. This document is on the right track and ready for publication, I have a few comments and suggestions to this draft as follows: 1.As stated in [RFC8214], 12-bit and 24-bit VPWS service instance identifiers representing normalized VIDs MUST be right-aligned. RFC8214 only requires 24-bit value right aligned, but doesn't provide requirements on 12 bit value, therefore the text described here is not consistent with what it said in RFC8214 2. Section 2 said: " In absence of updating the BGP path list, the traffic for that VPWS service tunnel will be black-holed. " 3. Section 5.2 said: " Default FXC (Figure 1): in the default mode, a VLAN or AC failure is not signaled. Consequently, in case of an AC failure such as VID1 on CE2, there is nothing to prevent PE3 from directing traffic from CE4 to PE1, leading to a potential black hole. " I am wondering whether this black hole issue is security issue and need to document as security consideration. 4.Section 3 said: " This translation of VIDs into unique VIDs (either single or double) is referred to as "VID normalization". " I see VID normalization as a new term, it will be nice to introduce the term defintion in section 1.1. 5.Section 3 said: " When a single normalized VID is used, the lower 12 bits of the Ethernet tag field in EVPN routes MUST be set to that VID. When a double normalized VID is used, the lower 12 bits of the Ethernet tag field MUST be set to the inner VID, while the higher 12 bits are set to the outer VID. " I am wondering how does disposition PE know when single normalized VID is used and when a double normalized VID is used, e.g., if single normalized VID is used, the higher 12 bits will be set to all zeros? No? 6.Section 3 said: “ Since the VID lookup (single or double) needs to be performed at the disposition PE, VID normalization MUST be completed prior to MPLS encapsulation on the ingress PE. ” One suggestion to this paragraph is to make clear who does VID normalization. I believe it is imposition PE, the question is whether imposition PE and ingress PE are the same box? I suggest to add two definition in the terminology section to clarify the relation between imposition PE and ingress PE, the relation between disposition PE and egress PE. 7. Section 3.3.1 said: " This method of prioritizing locally switched traffic aligns with the baseline EVPN principles described in [RFC7432] " Can you be more specific which section in RFC7432 to introduce baseline EVPN principles?