Re: Last Call Comment draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04.txt

In addition to Adrian's comment, I'm confused by a number of things in draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-04. Just picking on the big ones:

First, I think there might be a mistake in the XML examples and/or XSD. The schema in section 11 defines a target namespace of http://www.ietf.org/bgp-l3vpn-unicast.xsd but the examples use http://ietf.org/protocol/bgpvpn.

Second, the document doesn't seem to provide adequate operational guidance on how to determine the route server JID, how to determine the correct pubsub node values, etc. I assume that the server JID is a configurable option. And I assume that the pubsub node is equivalent to the 128 octet VPN ID. But neither seems to be spelled out clearly (unless I'm overlooking it) and in any case there don't seem to be any discussions of error handling. (In fact, the only comment I can find on the 'node' value suggests vaguely that perhaps all values are implicitly correct, in which case there needs to be some additional text about troubleshooting.)

Third, the schema offers three different encap types including GRE, UDP, and VXLAN. I believe that the GRE and UDP options are meant to be MPLS in {GRE, UDP} in which cases I think the 'label' element provides adequate information for the encapsulation. However I can't find text about how to construct the VXLAN encapsulation. Is it also MPLS over VXLAN, or is the label supposed to map to the VNI? In either case I suspect that you need a reference to something that defines the VXLAN usage of link layer addresses, or the use of the GPE extensions, etc.

Perhaps I'm overlooking something in the text, or (even more likely) maybe I'm just too ignorant of XMPP standards etc. If that's the case then I hope the authors will help me understand.

Otherwise, I'm not sure that this draft is ready for Proposed Standard publication. I suspect that it may need further review and development in BESS.

Cheers,
-Benson

Adrian Farrel

November 24, 2014 at 2:27 PM

This document contains a worked example using IP addresses from the 10/8 and
192.168/16 Private Use spaces.

It would be far better if the document used addresses from the three
documentation/test spaces 192.0.2/24 198.51.100/24 and 203.0.113/24

Unless you can provide a strong reason not to make this change (which looks to
me like it would be a simple matter), please do so in a new revision after IETF
last call.

Thanks,
Adrian