Re: draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn

Hi Sudhin,

Please see my comments in-line. cced [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> and Jorge (one of the authors of the RFC7432).


From: Sudhin Jacob [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 2:53 AM
To: Iftekhar Hussain
Cc: Kishore Tiruveedhula
Subject: RE: draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn

Hi Iftekhar,

Let me thank you for the review, Kindly find the updates. May I humbly request if you  have any queries could you please include [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> @ CC to capture the comments.

Regards,
Sudhin

From: Sudhin Jacob
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 8:09 AM
To: 'Iftekhar Hussain' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Kishore Tiruveedhula <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn

Hi Iftekhar,

Let me thank you for the comment, now the 2 drafts are combined to one as per the community request, now onwards PBB-EVPN and EVPN will be covered in the below draft.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kishjac-bmwg-evpntest/

I will get back.

Regards,
Sudhin

From: Iftekhar Hussain [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 4:11 AM
To: Sudhin Jacob <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Kishore Tiruveedhula <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn

Resend. Earlier messed failed to some MS office issues.

From: Iftekhar Hussain
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 2:38 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: draft-kishjac-bmwg-pbbevpn

Hi Jacob and Kishore,

It was nice meeting Jacob at the IETF97. I had a look at your draft and have following comments:

*         Why the draft scope does not explicitly mentions/includes RFC7432?
Sudhin>> it is updated in the latest combined draft.

[Iftekhar] Thanks. Please take a look at informative reference RFC7412. Is this a typo? Should it be RFC7432?



*         What is the impact on system performance (ARP memory for storing IP prefixes, lookups etc) and reliability (e.g., packet loss if any) when ARP-proxy is enabled (disabled)? Shouldn't your draft cover those metrics on reduction (or increase) in flooding
Sudhin>>  Could you please let me know if you want to add arp scaling as parameter, we will do it. The reliability section community told us not to do it, there is a section we added named convergence to check how fast the DUT converge in terms of failure.

[Iftekhar] Yes, some scaling parameter would make sense to me.

in BUM traffic due to ARP-proxy enabling(disabling)?

*         What is the performance metric for PE-CE load balancing (active-active)? Shouldn't this be covered in the draft?
Sudhin>>> I think that is a functional parameter, functional parameters are not supported by this workgroup.

[Iftekhar] I am thinking there should be some metric to measure the level of load balancing  between PE-CE and PE-PE. Let us see what other folks have any opinion on this.

Thanks,
Iftekhar

I support this work and believe this work would be useful for EVPN multi-vendor deployment scenarios.

Thanks
Iftekhar

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg