Hi Susan,
Thanks for the review and comments. Have uploaded rev19 to address comments received from you and other reviewers.
Please see inline for details.
On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 8:17 AM Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Not Ready
OPS-DIR review:
Status: Not ready - due to 6 authors.
Summary: Excellent technical text with clear descriptions.
The sequence number mechanism is a nifty algorithm.
Issue: 6 authors.
There are no technical issues and all operational issues have been carefully considered.
Technical NITS:
1) Count to infinity
Would an implementer or Wen Lin (a reviewer)
familiar with the RFC7432 and this code change,
check for the possibility of a "count to infinity
using this assignment of sequence numbers?
This is a NIT because I could not think of a network
deployment and change where this might be possible, but the
authors or Wen Lin might want to consider it.
(By the way, the text is so good that I can
spot this as a potential issue).
[NM]: I did discuss this with other co-authors. We concluded that with the existing mechanism for duplicate address detection in place, this can only happen when the actual number of legitimate moves for a host exhausts the 32 bit / 4 billion sequence number space. For a host that moves every minute, this amounts to ~7K years. In other words, not likely to run into. If at all, we still decide to specify a handling for sequence number wrapping in future, we should be able to add this to 7432bis draft.
2. Minor editorial NITs:
Please note that the editorial work on this text is excellent.
These NITs are very minor tweaks.
Section 2:
text-1: @EVPN-IRB: /
* EVPN-IRB: A BGP-EVPN distributed control plane based integrated
routing and bridging fabric overlay discussed in [RFC9135]/
What's wrong - This sentence needs a period at the end of the sentence.
[NM]. corrected in rev19
text-2: @ EVPN PE: / An EVPN PE is
typically also an IP or MPLS tunnel end-point for overlay VPN flow/
What's wrong - This sentence needs a period at the end of the sentence.
[NM]. corrected in rev19
Section 6.6: @last paragraph, explicit is incorrectly spelled (explcit)
Section 7: 1 and 2nd paragraph
text:/ * An overlay IP subnet may still be stretched across the underlay
fabric; however, intra-subnet traffic across the stretched overlay
is never bridged./
This is a borderline misuse of ";" as the sentences are not really parallel clauses.
[NM]. corrected in rev19
text-2: / In the absence of host MAC routes, the sequence number mobility Extended
Community specified in [RFC7432], section 7.7, MAY be associated with
a /32 or /128 host IP prefix advertised via EVPN Route Type 5./
What's wrong - use of commas obscures the text.
text-2: / In the absence of host MAC routes, the sequence number mobility Extended
Community specified in [RFC7432] in section 7.7 MAY be associated with
a /32 or /128 host IP prefix advertised via EVPN Route Type 5.
[NM]. corrected in rev19
Thanks,
Neeraj
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
